What is the total population of the
Untouchables of India? This is bound to be the first question that a person who cares to
know anything about them is sure to ask. It is now easy to answer this question. For the
Census of India taken in 1931 gives it as 50 millions. While it is possible now to give
more or less exact figures of the Untouchable population in India it was not possible to
do so for a long time.

This was due to various causes. Firstly
untouchability is not a legal term. There is no exact legal definition of untouchability
whereby it could be possible to define who is an Untouchable and who is not.
Untouchability is a social concept which has become embodied in a custom and as custom
varies so does untouchability. Consequently there is always some difficulty in the way of
ascertaining the population of the Untouchables with mathematical exactitude.

Secondly there has always been serious
opposition raised by high caste Hindus to the enumeration by caste in the Census Report.
They have insisted on the omission of the question regarding caste from the schedules and
the suppression of the classification of the population by caste and tribe. A proposal to
this effect was made in connection with the 1901 Census mainly on the ground that the
distribution of various castes and tribes in the population changed at large intervals and
that it was not necessary to obtain figures at each decennial enumeration.

These grounds of objection did not have any
effect on the Census Commissioner. In the opinion of the Census Commissioner enumeration
by caste was important and necessary. It was argued by the Census Commissioner that,

" Whatever
view may be taken of the advantages or disadvantages of caste as a social institution, it
is impossible to conceive of any useful discussion of the population questions in India in
which caste would not be an important element. Caste is still 'the
foundation of the Indian social fabric," and the record
of caste is still 'the best guide to the changes in the
various social strata in the Indian Society'. Every Hindu
(using the term in its most elastic sense) is born into a caste and his caste determines
his religious, social. economic and domestic life from the cradle to the grave. In western
countries the major factors which determine the different strata of society, viz. wealth, education and vocation are fluid and catholic and
tend to modify the rigidity of birth and hereditary position. In India spiritual and
social community and traditional occupation override all
other factors. Thus, where in censuses of western countries,
an economic or occupational grouping of the population affords a basis for the combination
of demographic statistics, the corresponding basis in the case of the Indian population is
the distinction of religion and caste. Whatever view may be taken of caste as a national
and social institution, it is useless to ignore it, and so long as caste continues to be
used as one of the distinguishing features of an individual's official and social
identity, it cannot be claimed that a decennial enumeration helps to perpetuate an
undesirable institution."

The objections to the enumeration by castes
in the census were urged with greater force on the occasion of the census of 1911 when the
special questionnaire containing ten tests was issued for the purpose of grouping together
castes which satisfied those tests. There was no doubt that those tests were such as would
mark off the Depressed Classes from the Caste Hindus. It was feared by the Caste Hindus
that this circular was the result of the Muslim Memorial to the Secretary of State and its
aim was to separate the Depressed Classes from the Hindus and thereby to reduce the
strength of the Hindu Community and its importance.

This agitation bore no fruit and the
objection of separately enumerating in the Census Report those castes which satisfied those ten tests was carried out. The agitation however did
not die out. It again cropped up at the Census of 1920. At this time, effort was made to
put forth the objection to the caste return in a formal manner. A resolution was tabled in
the Imperial Legislative Council in 1920 attacking the caste inquiry on the grounds (a)
that it was undesirable to recognise and perpetuate, by official action, the system of
caste differentiation and (b) that in any case the returns
were inaccurate and worthless, since the lower castes took the opportunity of passing
themselves as belonging to groups of higher status. If this resolution had been carried,
it would not have been possible to know the population of the Untouchables. Fortunately
owing to the absence of the mover, the resolution was not discussed and the Census
Commissioner of 1921 remained free to carry out his inquiries in the usual manner.

Thirdly no attempt was made for a separate
enumeration of the Untouchables by any of the Census Commissioners previous to the year
1911. The first general Census of India was taken in the year 1881. Beyond listing the
different castes and creeds and adding up their numbers so as to arrive at the total figure of the population of India, the Census of 1881 did
nothing. It made no attempt to classify the different Hindu castes either into higher and
lower or Touchable and Untouchable. The second general
Census of India was taken in the year 1891. It was at this census that an attempt to
classify the population on the basis of caste and race and grade was made by the Census
Commissioner for the first time.

The third general Census of India was taken
in 1901. At this census a new principle of classification
was adopted namely "Classification by Social precedence
as recognised by native public opinion." For a society like the Hindu society which
does not recognise equality and whose social system is a system of gradation of higher and
lower, this principle was the most appropriate one. Nothing can present a more
intelligible picture of the social life and grouping of that large proportion of the
people of India which is organised admittedly or tacitly on the basis of caste as this
principle of social precedence.

II

The first attempt of a definite and
deliberate kind to ascertain the population of the Untouchables was made by the Census
Commissioner in 1911.

The period immediately preceding the Census
of 1911 was a period during which the Morley-Minto Reforms
were in incubation. It was a period when the Mahomedans of
India had started their agitation for adequate representation in the legislatures by
separate electorates. As a part of their propaganda, the Mahomedans waited upon Lord Morley, the then Secretary of State for India in Council, in
deputation and presented him a Memorial on the 27th January 1909. In that memorial there
occurs the following statement:(The
statement is not recorded in the MS.Ed.) Whether there was any connection
between what the Muslim deputation had urged in their memorial regarding the Untouchables
in 1907 and the idea of the Census Commissioner four years after to make a separate
enumeration of the Untouchables, is a matter on which nothing definite can be said. It is
possible that what the Census Commissioner proposed to do in 1911 was only a culmination
of the

ways adopted by his predecessors in the
matter of the demographic study of the population. Be that as it may, there was a great
uproar on the part of the Hindus when the Census Commissioner announced his plan of
separate enumeration of the Untouchables. It was said that this attempt of the Census
Commissioner was the result of a conspiracy between the Musalmans
and the British Government to divide and weaken the Hindu Community. It was alleged that
what was behind this move was not a genuine desire to know the population of the
Untouchables but the desire to break up the solidarity of the Hindu Community by
separating the Untouchables from the Touchables. Many
protest meetings were held all over the country by the Hindus and condemned in the
strongest terms this plan of the Census Commissioner.

The Commissioner of Census however undaunted
by this storm of protest decided to carry out his plan. The procedure adopted by him for a
separate enumeration of the Untouchables was of course a novel one. The Census
Superintendents for different Provinces were instructed by the Census Commissioner to make
separate enumeration of castes and tribes classed as Hindus but who did not conform to
certain standards or who were subject to certain disabilities.

Under these tests the Census Superintendents
made a separate enumeration of castes and tribes who (1) denied the supremacy of the
Brahmins, (2) did not receive the Mantra from Brahmana or other recognized Hindu Guru,
(3) denied the authority of the Vedas, (4) did not worship
the great Hindu Gods, (5) were not served by good Brahmanas,
(6) have no Brahman priests at all, (7) have no access to
the interior of the ordinary Hindu temple, (8) cause pollution, (9) bury their dead and
(10) eat beef and do not revere the cow.

The investigation conducted by the Census
Commissioner left no room for guessing. For he found as a fact what the population of the
Untouchables was. The table below gives the population of the Untouchables, province by
province, as found by the Census Commissioner of 1911.*[f1]

Province

Total
Population in Millions

Population
of Depressed Classes in Millions

Total
seats

Seats
for the depressed classes

Madras

39.8

6.3

120

2

Bombay

19.5

0.6

113

1

Bengal

45.0

9.9

127

1

United
Provinces

47.0

10.1

120

1

Punjab

19.5

1.7

85

Bihar
and Orissa

32.4

9.3

100

1

Central
Provinces

12.0

3.7

72

1

Assam

6.0

0.3

54

Total

221.2

41.9

791

7

An outsider might not realise the
significance and the bearing of these tests. They might ask what all this got to do with untouchability. But he will realise the significance and the
bearing on the question of ascertaining the population of the Untouchables. As has been
said there is no legal definition of untouchability and there cannot be any.
Untouchability does not express itself through the hair of the head or the colour of the
skin. It is not a matter of blood. Untouchability expresses itself in modes of treatment
and observance of certain practices. An Untouchable is a person who is treated in a
certain way by the Hindus and who follows certain practices, which are different from the
Hindus. There are definite ways in which the Hindus treat the Untouchables in social
matters. They are definite practices, which are observed by the Untouchables. That being
so the only method of ascertaining who are Untouchables is to adopt their ways and
practices as the criteria and find out the communities which are subject to them. There is
no other way. If the outsider bears this in mind, he will understand that even though the
tests prescribed by the Census Commissioner do not show any colour of untouchability, they
are in fact the hall marks of untouchability. That being so, there can be no manner of
doubt that the procedure was proper and the tests were correct. Consequently it can be
truly said, the results of this investigation were valuable and the figures obtained were
accurate as far they can be in a matter of this sort.

Ill

The findings of the Census Commissioner of
191I regarding the total population of the Untouchables were confirmed by the Census
Commissioner of 1921.

The Census Commissioner of 1921 also made an
investigation-to ascertain the population of the
Untouchables. In this Report Part I para 1931 the Census
Commissioner observed:

" It has
been usual in recent years to speak of certain section of the community as 'depressed classes'. So far as I am aware, the term has no
final definition nor is it certain exactly whom it covers. In the Quinquennial Review on
the Progress of Education from 1912/17 (Chapter XVIII paragraph 505)  the depressed
classes are specifically dealt with from the point of view of Educational assistance and
progress and in Appendix XIII to that Report a list of the castes and tribes constituting
this section of the Community is given. The total population classed according to these
lists as depressed amounted to 31 million persons or 19 per cent of the Hindu and Tribal
population of British India. There is undoubtedly some danger in giving offence by making
in a public report social distinction which may be deemed invidious; but in view of the
lists already prepared and the fact that the "
Depressed Classes " have, especially in South India,
attained a class consciousness and a class organisation, are served by special missions, " raised " by
philanthropic societies and officially represented in the Legislative Assemblies, it
certainly seems advisable to face the facts and to attempt to obtain some statistical
estimate of their numbers. I therefore asked Provincial Superintendents to let me have an
estimate based on census figures of the approximate strength of the castes who were
usually included in the category of "depressed".

" I received
lists of some sort from all provinces and states except the United Provinces, where
extreme delicacy of official sentiment shrank from facing the task of attempting even a
rough estimate. The figures given are not based on exactly uniform criteria, as a
different view is taken of the position of the same groups in different parts of India,
and I have had in some cases to modify the estimates on the basis of the figures in the
educational report and of information from the 1911 reports and tables. They are also
subject to the general defect, which has already been explained, that the total strength
of any caste is not recorded. The marginal statement gives however a rough estimate of the
minimum members
which may be considered to form the "depressed classes"
of the Hindu community. The total of these provincial figures adds up to about 53
millions. This, however, must be taken as a low and conservative estimate since it does
not include (1) the full strength of the castes and tribes concerned and (2) the tribal
aborigines more recently absorbed in Hinduism, many of whom are considered impure. We may
confidently place the numbers of these depressed classes all of whom are considered
impure, at something between 55 and 60 millions in India proper."

Then came the inquiry by the Simon Commission
which was appointed by the British Parliament in 1929 to examine the working of the
Reforms introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919 and to suggest further reforms.

At the time when the reforms which
subsequently became embodied in the Act of 1919 were being discussed, the authors of the Montague-Cheirnsford Report clearly recognised the problem of
the Untouchables and the authors pledged themselves to make the best arrangement for their
representation in the Legislatures. But the Committee that was appointed under the
chairmanship of Lord South borough to devise the franchise
and the electoral system ignored them altogether. The Government of India did not approve
of this attitude and made the following comments:

"They (Untouchables) are one fifth of
the total population and have not been represented at all in the Morley-Minto
Councils. The Committee's report mentions them (Untouchables) twice, but only to explain
that in the absence of satisfactory electorates they have been provided for by nomination.
It does not discuss the position of these people, or their capacity for looking after
themselves. Nor does it explain the amount of nomination which it suggests for them........ The measure of representation which they propose...... suggested that one fifth of the entire population of
British India should be allotted seven seats out of practically eight hundred. It is true
that in all the Councils there will be roughly speaking a one-sixth proportion of
officials who may be expected to bear in mind the interests of the (Untouchables); but
that arrangement is not, in our opinion, what the Report on reforms aims at. The authors
stated that the (Untouchables) also should learn lessons of self-protection. It is surely
fanciful to hope that this result can be expected from including a single member of the
community in an assembly where there are sixty or seventy caste Hindus. To make good the
principles of the Report we must treat the outcastes more generously ".

The Government recommended that the seats
allotted to the Untouchables by the Committee should be doubled. Accordingly in place of
seven they were given fourteen seats. It will be seen that the generosity of the
Government of India when put into practice did not amount to much. It certainly did not do
to the Untouchables the justice that was their due.

Among the problems that were not properly
settled in 1919, was the problem of the Untouchables, which was bound to loom large before
the Simon Commission. Quite unexpectedly the problem received a special emphasis at the
hands of the late Lord Birkenhead who was then the Secretary
of State for India. In a speech which he made on [f2]... .........
just before the appointment of the Simon Commission he said (Left blank in the
MS.Ed.).

Naturally the problem became a special task
of the Simon Commission. Although the problem as presented was one of providing
representationand in that sense a political problem at the bottomit was a problem, of ascertaining the population
of the untouchables, Because unless the population was
ascertained, the extent of representation in the legislature could not be settled.

The Simon Commission had therefore to make a
searching inquiry into the population of the untouchables. It called upon the various
provincial governments to furnish returns showing the numbers of untouchables residing in
their area and it is well known that the provincial governments took special care in
preparing these returns. There can therefore be no question regarding the accuracy of the
figure of the total population of the untouchables. The following table[f3] gives the figures for the population of the
untouchables as found by the Southborough Committee and by
the Simon Commission.

IV

It is thus clear that the population of the
Untouchables has been estimated to be somewhere about 50 millions. That this is the
population of the Untouchables had been found by the Census Commissioner of 191I and
confirmed by the Census Commissioner of 1921 and by the Simon Commission in 1929. This
fact was never challenged by any Hindu during the twenty years it stood on the record.
Indeed in so far as the Hindu view could be gauged from the reports of the different
Committees appointed by the Provincial and Central Legislatures to co-operate with the
Simon Commission, there can be no doubt that they accepted this figure without any demur.

Suddenly however in 1932, when the Lothian
Committee came and began its investigation, the Hindus adopted a challenging mood and
refused to accept this figure as the correct one. In some provinces the Hindus went to the
length of denying that there were any Untouchables there at all. This episode reveals the
mentality of the Hindus and as such deserves to be told in some details.

The Lothian Committee was appointed in
consequence of the recommendations made by the Franchise Sub-Committee of the Indian Round
Table Conference. The Committee toured the whole of India,
visited all the Provinces except Central Provinces and
Assam. To aid the Committee, there were constituted in each Province by the provincial
Government, Provincial Committees comprising, so far as
possible, spokesmen of the various schools of thought and of the various political interests existing in each Province. These Provincial Committees
were in the main composed of members of the Provincial
Councils with non-officials as Chairmen. With a view to concentrating discussion, the
Indian Franchise Committee issued a questionnairecovering the field included in its terms of
reference. The procedure laid down by the Franchise Committee was that Provincial
Governments should formulate their own views on the points raised in the questionnaire and
discuss them with the Committee and that the Provincial Committees who were regarded as
the authoritative advisers should independently formulate their views and should at their
discretion conduct a preliminary examination of witnesses on the basis of their written
statements. The Report of the Indian Franchise Committee was therefore a thorough piece of
work based upon detailed investigation.

The letter of instruction sent by the Prime
Minister to Lord Lothian as Chairman of the Indian Franchise Committee and which
constituted the terms of reference of the Committee contained the following observation:

" It is
evident from the discussions which have occurred in various connections in the (Indian
Round Table) Conference that the new constitution must make adequate provision for the
representation of the depressed classes and that the method of representation by
nomination is no longer regarded as appropriate. As you are aware, there is a difference
of opinion whether the system of separate electorates should be instituted for the
depressed classes and your committee's investigation should contribute towards the
decision of this question by indicating the extent to which the depressed classes would be
likely, through such general extension of the Franchise as you may recommend, to secure
the right to vote in ordinary electorates. On the other hand, should it be decided
eventually to constitute separate electorates for the depressed classes, either generally
or in those Provinces in which they form a distinct and separate element in the
population, your Committee's inquiry into the general problem of extending the franchise
should place you in possession of facts which would facilitate the devising of a method of
separate representation for the depressed classes ". Accordingly
in the questionnaire that was issued by the Indian Franchise Committee there was included
the following Question:

" What
communities would you include as belonging to DepressedClasses? Would you include classes other than Untouchables, and if so which"?

I was a member of the Indian Franchise
Committee. When I became a member of the Committee, I was aware that the principal
question on which I should have to give battle with the Caste Hindus was the question of
joint versus separate electorates for the Untouchables. I knew, that in the Indian
Franchise Committee, the odds would be heavily against them. I was to be the only
representative of the Untouchables in the Committee as against half a dozen of the Caste
Hindus. Against such an unequal fight I had prepared myself. Before accepting membership
of the Indian Franchise Committee, I had stipulated that the decision of the question
whether the Untouchables should have joint or separate electorates should not form part of
the terms of reference to the Committee. This was accepted and the question was excluded
from the purview of the Indian Franchise Committee. I had therefore no fear of being out
voted on this issue in the Committee a strategy for which the Hindu Members of the
Committee did not forgive me. But there arose another problem of which I had not the
faintest idea. I mean the problem of numbers. The problem of numbers having been examined
between 1911 to 1929 by four different authorities, who found that the population of
Untouchables was somewhere about 50 millions, I did not feel that there would be any
contest over this issue before the Indian Franchise Committee.

Strange as it may appear the issue of numbers
was fought out most bitterly and acrimoniously before the Indian Franchise Committee.
Committee after Committee and witness after witness came forward to deny the existence of
the Untouchables. It was an astounding phenomenon with which I was confronted. It would be
impossible to refer to the statement of individual witnesses who came forward to deny the
existence of such a class as the Untouchables. It would be enough if I illustrate my point
by referring to the views of the Provincial Franchise Committees and their members
relating to the question of the population of the Untouchables.

PUNJAB

Opinion
of the Punjab Government.

"The Punjab Government is of opinion
that the enfranchisement of the tenant will give the vote to a considerable number of the
Depressed Classes and to that extent will give them influence in the election of
representatives to the Council. "[f4]

" As regards the Depressed Classes, the
Punjab Government has no reason to depart from the view which it has already expressed in para 25 of the Memorandum containing the opinions of the
official members of the Government on the recommendations of the Indian

Statutory Commission, that these classes are
not a pressing problem in the Punjab and will get some representation as tenants. "[f5]Opinion
of the Punjab Provincial Franchise Committee.

"K.B. Din
Mahomed and Mr. Hansraj (who represented the Untouchables on
the Committee) held that, while there are no depressed classes among the Musalmans, there exist depressed classes among the Hindus and
Sikhs..... Their total number being 1,310,709. Mr. Hansraj
considers this list incomplete."

"They held that provision should be made
for separate representation by treating the depressed classes as a separate community. Mr.
NazirHusain,RaiBahadurChaudhriChhotu Ram, Mr. Own
Roberts, K. B. Muhammad Hayat, Mr. Qureshi,
Mr. Chatterji,SardarBhutaSingh and Pandit NanakChand held that it is
impossible to say that there are depressed classes in the Punjab in the sense that any
person by reason of his religion suffers any diminution of civic rights..... The Chairman, Pandit Nanak Chand and Sardar Bhuta Singh
are of opinion that the depressed classes do not exist in the sense in which they exist in
Southern India, and that, while there are in the villages certain classes who occupy a
very definitely inferior economic and social position, it is not possible to differentiate
the Hindu leather worker or Chamar who is claimed as a
depressed class from the Musalman leather worker or Mochi who no one alleges belongs to a separate class. "[f6]

It will thus be seen that the Punjab Provincial Government avoided to answer
the question. The Punjab Provincial Committee by a majority denied that there existed a
class such as depressed or untouchable.

UNITED
PROVINCES

Opinion
of the Provincial Franchise Committee.

"The United Provinces Franchise
Committee is of opinion that only those classes should be called "depressed"
which are untouchable. Judged by this test, the problem of untouchability
is non-existent in these provinces except in the case of Bhangis,Doms and Dhanuks, whose total
population, including those sections which are touchable is
only 582,000."[f7]

Babu Ram Sahai, a
member of the United Provinces Pronvincial Franchise
Committee representing the untouchable classes, in his minute of dissent gave the numbers[f8]of the Untouchables in U. P. as 11,435,417. Rai Sahib BabuRamcharan another member of
the United Provinces Provincial Franchise Committee representing the Depressed Classes in
his minute of dissent gave the numbers[f9] of the Depressed Classes in U.P. as 20 millions.

The Government of the United Provinces
reported[f10] that the maximum estimate amounts to 17
million persons; the minimum something less than one million. In its opinion the least
number was 6,773,814.

BENGAL

The Bengal Provincial Franchise Committee in
its first Report[f11] said.

" The
Committee could come to no decision on this question and resolved to put it back for
consideration along with the Central Committee." In its final Report the same
Committee said

The population of the Depressed Classes in Bihar and Orissa according to the
Census of 191 I was 9,300,000 [f13]and according to the Census of 1921 was 8,000,000 6.

But the Bihar
and Orissa Provincial Franchise Committee in its provincial
memorandum7 observed

" It is
difficult to give an exhaustive list of the castes or sects who come under the definition
of Depressed Classes. The only classes which can be called depressed are Mushahars,Dusadhs,Chamars,Doms and Mehtars. Their number
is not sufficiently large to justify their being grouped in a separate electoral roll. The
problem of Depressed Classes is not so acute in Bihar as in
Bombay or South India. The Committee considers that there is no need for special
representation of the Depressed Classes."

"The classes which are commonly regarded
as Untouchables are Chamar,Busadh,Dom,Halalkhor,Hari,Mochi,Mushahar, Pan Pasi.....
The majority of the Committee, however consider that there is no need for special
representation as the Depressed Classes as their grievances are not so acute here as in
Bombay or South India".

Why did the Hindus suddenly turn to reduce
the population of the Untouchables from millions to fractions? The figure of 50 millions
had stood on the record from 1911. It had not been questioned by any one. How is it that
in 1932 the Hindus made so determined an effort without any regard to the means to
challenge the accuracy of this figure?

The answer is simple. Up to 1932 the
Untouchables had no political importance. Although they were outside the pale of Hindu
Society which recognises only four classes namely Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras, yet for political purposes they
were reckoned as part of the Hindu Society. So that for political purposes such as
representation in the Legislature etc., the question of the population of the Untouchables
was of no consequence. Up to 1932 the political question was one of division of seats in
the Legislature between Hindus and Musalmans only and as
there was no question of the seats that came to the lot of the Hindus being partitioned
between the Touchables and the Untouchables and as the whole
share went to the Touchables they did not care to inquire
what the population of the Untouchables was. By 1932 the situation had completely altered.
The question of partition was no longer a question between Hindus and Musalmans. The
Untouchables had begun to claim that there should not only be a partition between the
Hindus and Musalmans but that the share allotted to the Hindus should be further
partitioned and the share of the Untouchables given to them to be enjoyed by them
exclusively. This claim to separation was recognised and the Untouchables were allowed to
be represented by members of their own class at the Indian Round Table Conference. Not
only was the separate existence of the Untouchables thus recognised but the Minorities
Subcommittee of the Indian Round Table Conference had accepted the principle that under
the new Constitution the depressed classes should be given representation in all
Legislatures in proportion to their population. It is thusthat the population of the
Untouchables became a subject of importance. The less the
population of the Untouchables the greater the share of the political representation that
would go to the Touchable Hindus. This will explain why the
Touchables who before 1932 did not care to quarrel over the question of the population of
the Untouchables, after 1932 began denying the very existence of such a class as
Untouchables.

The ostensible grounds urged by the Hindus
before the Lothian Committee for reducing the population of the Untouchables were two. One
was that the figures given by the Census Commissioner were
for Depressed Classes and not for Untouchables and that Depressed Classes included other
classes besides Untouchables. The second ground urged by them was that, the definition of
the word should be uniform throughout all India and should be applied in all Provinces in
determining the population of the Untouchables. In other words they objected to a local
test of untouchability.

The first contention was absolutely untrue. The term Depressed Classes was
used as a synonym for Untouchables and the term Depressed Classes was used instead of the
term Untouchables because the latter it was felt, would give offence to the people meant
to be included under the term. That, it was used to denote only the Untouchables and it
did not include the Aboriginals or the Criminal Tribes was made clear in the debate that
took place in the Imperial Legislative Council in 1916 on the Resolution moved by the
Honourable Mr. Dadabhoy. The second contention of the caste
Hindus was that the test of untouchability should be uniform. The object of putting forth
this contention was to reduce the number of Untouchables. It is well known that there are
variations in the forms which untouchability assumes in different parts of India. In some
parts of India, Untouchables are un-seeables i.e. they cause
pollution if they come within the sight of a Touchable
Hindu. In some parts Untouchables are unapproachables i.e.
they cause pollution if they come within a certain distance of a Touchable Hindu. Of these
unapproachables there are two classes. There is a class of unapproachables who cannot come
within a certain fixed distance of a Touchable Hindu. There is another class of
unapproachables who cannot come so near a Hindu as to let his shadow fall upon him. In
some parts of India an Untouchable is not an unseeable or
unapproachable. It is only his physical contact which causes pollution. In some parts an
Untouchable is one who is not allowed to touch water or food. In some parts an Untouchable
is one who is not allowed to enter a temple. With these variations it is clear, that if unseeability was taken as the only test of untouchability, then
the unapproachables would have to be excluded from the category of Untouchables. If unapproachability was taken as a test, then those whose touch
only caused pollution will have to be excluded from the category of Untouchables. If
causing pollution by touch be taken as a test, then those whose disability is that they
are not allowed to touch water or food or those whose only disability is that they are not
allowed to enter the temple, shall have to be excluded. This is what the Hindus wanted to
do. By insisting upon uniform test they wanted to eliminate certain classes from the
category of Untouchables and thereby reduce the population of the Untouchables. Obviously
their point of view was fallacious. Untouchability is an outward expression of the inner repulsion
which a Hindu feels towards a certain person. The form which this repulsion takes is
comparatively a matter of small moment. The form merely indicates the degree of repulsion.
Wherever there is repulsion there is untouchability. This simple truth the Hindus knew.

But they kept on insisting upon uniformity of
test because they wanted somehow to reduce the population of the Untouchables and to
appropriate to themselves a larger share of
political representation.

VI

This struggle between the Hindus and the
Untouchables constituted undoubtedly the main episode. But within this episode there was
another which though of a smaller character, was yet full of
significance. It was the struggle between the Backward Classes and the Untouchables. The
representatives of the Backward Classes contended that the category known as Depressed
Classes should not only include Untouchables in the strict sense of that term but should
also include those classes which are economically and educationally backward.

The object of those that wanted, that not
only the Untouchables but also those who are educationally and economically backward shall
also be given separate representation, was a laudable one. In putting forth this
contention they were not asking for anything that was new. Under the reformed constitution
that came into operation in 1920, the right of the economically and educationally backward
communities was recognised in the two provinces of India namely Bombay and Madras. In
Bombay the Marathas and allied castes and in Madras the
Non-Brahmins were given separate representation on the only ground that they were
economically and educationally backward.

It was feared that if special representation
was not given to those communities, they would be
politically suppressed by the minority of high caste Hindus such as Brahmins and allied
castes. There are many communities in other Provinces who are in the same position and who
need special political representation to prevent their being suppressed by the higher
castes. It was therefore perfectly proper for the representatives of the Backward Classes
from the Hindus to have claimed special representation for themselves.[f15] If their point of view had been accepted the
total number of Depressed Classes would have swelled to enormous proportions.

But they received no support either from the Untouchables or from the high
caste Hindus. The Hindus were opposed to the move which was calculated to increase the
population of the Depressed Classes. The Untouchables did not want to be included in their
category any class of people who were not really Untouchables. The proper course for these
backward communities was to have asked to make a division of
Touchable Hindus into advanced and backward and to claim
separate representation for the Backward.

In that effort the Untouchables would have
supported them. But they did not agree to this and persisted in being included among the
Depressed Classes largely because they thought that this was easier way of securing their
object. But as the Untouchables opposed the backward communities turned and joined the
Hindus in denying the existence of Untouchables, more vehemently
than the Hindus.

In this struggle between the Touchables and Untouchables the latter did not get any support
from the Mahomedans. It will be noticed that in the Punjab
Provincial Franchise Committee, only one Mahomedan supported the representative of the Untouchables in
his assertion that there are in the Punjab communities, which are treated as Untouchables.
The rest of the Mahomedan members of the Committee did not join. In Bengal the Hindu and
the Mahomedan members of the Bengal Provincial Franchise Committee agreed not to express
any view on the matter.

It is rather strange that the Mahomedans should have kept mum. It was in
their interest that the Untouchables should be recognized as a separate political
community. This separation between the Touchables and the Untouchables was to their
benefit. Why did they not help the Untouchables in this struggle for numbers? There were
two reasons why the Mahomedans took this attitude. In the first place the Mahomedans were
asking for more than their population ratio of representation. They were asking for what
in Indian political parlance is known as weightage.

They knew that their weightage must involve a loss to the Hindus and the only
question was which section of the Hindus should bear the loss. The Touchable Hindus would
notmind the weightage if it could be granted without
reducing their share. How to do this was the problem and the only way out of it was to
reduce the share of the Untouchables. To reduce the share meant to reduce the population.
This is one reason why the Mahomedans did not help the
Untouchables in this struggle for numbers. The second reason why the Mahomedans did not
help the Untouchables was the fear of exposure by the Hindus. Although Islam is the one
religion which can transcend race and colour and unite diverse people into a compact
brotherhood, yet Islam in India has not succeeded in uprooting caste from among the Indian
Musalmans. Caste feeling among the Musalmans is not so verulent as it is among the Hindus. But the fact is that, it
exists. That this caste feeling among the Musalmans leads to social gradation, a feature
of the Muslim Community in India, has been noticed by all those who have had an occasion
to study the subject. The Census Commissioner for Bengal in his report says: (The quotation is not recorded in the MS.Ed.)

These facts are quite well known to the
Hindus and they were quite prepared to cite them against the Muslims if the Muslims went
too far in helping the Untouchables in this struggle for numbers and thereby bringing
about a dimunition of the seats for Caste Hindus in the
Legislature. The Mahomedans knew their own weak points. They did not wish to give an
excuse to the Hindus to rake up the social divisions among the Musalmans and thought that
their interest would be best served by their taking a non-partisan attitude.

The Untouchables were thus left to themselves
to fight for their numbers. But even they could not be depended upon to muster for the
cause. When the Hindus found that they could not succeed in reducing the number of the
Untouchables, they tried to mislead the Untouchables. They began telling the Untouchables
that Government was making a list of the Untouchable communities and it was wrong to have
a community's name entered in such list because it would perpetuate untouchability. Acting on this advice, many communities who
were actually an Untouchable community would send a petition stating
that it was not classed as Untouchable and should not be listed. Much effort had to be
made to induce such communities to withdraw such petitions by informing them that the real
purpose was to estimate their numbers in order to fix their
seats in the Legislature.

Fortunately for all, this struggle is now
over and the controversy is closed and the population of the Untouchables can never be
open to dispute. The Untouchables are now statutorily
defined. Who are Untouchables is laid down by a schedule to
the Government of India Act 1935, which describes them as Scheduled Castes. But the
struggle reveals a trait of Hindu character. If the Untouchables
make no noise, the Hindu feels no shame for their condition and is quite indifferent as to
their numbers. Whether they are thousands or millions of them, he does not care to bother.
But if the Untouchables rise and ask for recognition, he is prepared to deny their existence, repudiate his
responsibility and refuse to share his power without feeling any compunction or remorse.

CHAPTER 2

THE REVOLT OF THE UNTOUCHABLES

The movement of the Untouchables against the
injustice of the Hindu Social Order has a long history behind it, especially in
Maharashtra. This history falls into two stages. The first stage was marked by petitions
and protests. The second stage is marked by open revolt in the form of direct action
against the Hindu Established Order. This change of attitude was due to two circumstances.
In the first place it was due to the realisation that the petitions and protests had
failed to move the Hindus. In the second place Governments had declared that all public
utilities and public institutions are open to all citizens including the Untouchables. The
right to wear any kind of clothes or ornaments are some of the rights which the British
Indian Law gives to the Untouchables along with the rest. To these were added the rights
to the use of public utilities and institutions, such as wells, schools, buses, trams.
Railways, Public offices, etc., were now put beyond the pale of doubt. But owing to the
opposition of the Hindus the Untouchables cannot make any use of them. It is to meet the
situation, the Untouchables decided to change the methods and to direct action to redress
their wrongs. This change took place about 1920.

I

Of such attempts at direct action only few
can be mentioned so as to give an idea of the revolt of the Untouchables against the Hindu
Social Order. Of the attempts made to vindicate the right to use the public roads, it is
enough to mention one, most noteworthy attempt in this behalf was that made by the
Untouchables of Travencore State in 1924 to obtain the use of the roads which skirted the
temple atVaikorn. These
roads were public roads maintained by the State for the use of everybody, but on account
of their proximity to the temple building, the Untouchables were not allowed to use
certain sections, which skirted the temple too closely. Ultimately as a result of Satyagraha, the temple compound was enlarged and the road was
realigned so that there the Untouchables even if they used it were no longer within the
polluting distance of the temple.

I

Of the attempts made to vindicate the right
to take water from the public watering places, it is enough to mention the case of the
Chawdar Tank.

This Chawdar Tank is situated in the town of
Mahad in the Kolaba District of Bombay Presidency. The tank is a vast expanse of water
mainly fed by the rains and a few natural springs. The sides of the tank are embanked.
Around the tank there are small strips of land on all sides belonging to private
individuals. Beyond this strip of land lies the Municipal road which surrounds the tank
and beyond the road are houses owned by the Touchables. The tank lies in the heart of the
Hindu quarters and is surrounded by Hindu residence.

This tank is an old one and no one knows who
built it or when it was built. But in 1869 when a Municipality was established by the
Government for the town of Mahad, it was handed over to the Municipality by the Government
and has since then been treated as a Municipal i.e., public tank.

Mahad is a business centre. It is also the
headquarters of a taluk. The Untouchables either for purposes of doing their shopping and
also for the purpose of their duty as village servants had to come to Mahad to deliver to
the taluka officer either the correspondence sent by village officials or to pay
Government revenue collected by village officials. The Chawdar tank was the only public
tank from which an outsider could get water. But the Untouchables were not allowed to take
water from this tank. The only source of water for the Untouchables was the well in the
Untouchables quarters in the town of Mahad. This well was at some distance from the centre
of the town. It was quite choked on account of its neglect by the Municipality.

The Untouchables therefore were suffering a
great hardship in the matter of water. This continued till matters got going. In 1923 the
Legislative Council of Bombay passed a resolution to the effect that the Untouchable
classes be allowed to use all public watering places, wells, Dharmashalas which are built
and maintained out of public funds, or are administered by bodies appointed by Government
or created by Statutes as well as public schools, courts, offices and dispensaries.
Government accepted the resolution and issued the following orders:

"In pursuance of the foregoing Council
Resolution the Government of Bombay are pleased to direct that all heads of offices should
give effect to the resolution so far as it related to the public places, institutions
belonging to and maintained by Government. The Collectors should be requested to advise
the local bodies in their jurisdiction to consider the desirability of accepting the
recommendations made in the Resolution." In accordance with this order of the
Government, the Collector of Kolaba forwarded a copy thereof
to the Mahad Municipality for consideration. The Mahad
Municipality passed a resolution on 5th January 1924 to the effect that the Municipality
had no objection to allow the Untouchables to use the tank. Soon after this resolution was
passed there was held at Mahad, a Conference of Untouchables of the Kolaba District over
which I presided. The Conference met for two days, the 18th and 20th March 1927. This was
the first Conference of the Untouchables held in the Kolaba District. Over 2,500
Untouchables attended the Conference and there was great enthusiasm. On the first day of
the Conference, I delivered my presidential address, in which I exhorted them to fight for
their rights, give up their dirty and vicious habits and rise to full manhood. Thereafter
high caste Hindus who were present and, who held out that they were the friends of the
Untouchables, addressed the gathering and told the Untouchables to be bold and exercise
the right that is given to them by law. With this, the proceedings of the first day were
closed. The subject committee met at night to consider the resolution to be moved in open
conference the next day. In the Subject Committee, attention was drawn by some people to
the fact that there was great difficulty at Mahad for the Untouchables in the matter of
obtaining water for drinking purposes, and that this difficulty was felt particularly by
the members of the Reception Committee of the Conference which had to spend Rs. 15 an
enormous amount to employ caste Hindus to dole out water in sufficient quantity to satisfy
the needs of those who had attended the Conference.

Next day on the 20th, the Conference met
about 9 in the morning. The resolutions agreed upon in the Subject Committee were moved
and passed by the Conference. It took about three hours in all. In the end one of my
co-workers in moving a vote of thanks to the President and others who had helped to make
the Conference a success referred to the question of the difficulty in the matter of
getting water and exhorted the Untouchables present to go to the tank and exercise their
right to take water from Chawdar tank, especially as the Municipality had by resolution
declared it open to the Untouchables and that their Hindu friends were ready to help them.
The Hindus who had exhorted them to be bold and begin fearlessly to exercise their rights,
instantly realised that this was a bombshell and immediately ran away. But the effect upon
the Untouchables was very different. They were electrifiedby this call to arms. To a man they rose and the body of 2,500 Untouchables led by
me and my co-workers marched in a procession through the main streets. The news spread
like wild fire while crowds thronged the streets to witness it.

The Hindu inhabitants of the town saw the
scene. They were taken by storm. They stood aghast witnessing this scene which they had
never seen before. For the moment they seemed to be stunned and paralysed. The procession
in form of fours marched past and went to the Chawdar tank, and the Untouchables for the
first time drank the water. Soon the Hindus, realising what had happened, went into frenzy
and committed all sorts of atrocities upon the Untouchables who had dared to pollute the
water. These atrocities will be narrated in their proper places.

The assault committed by the Hindus on the
Untouchables at Mahad when they entered the Chawdar tank was undoubtedly a challenge to
the Untouchables. The Untouchables on the other hand were determined not to be satisfied
with merely exercising their right but to see it established. They naturally felt that
they must take up the challenge thrown at them by the Hindus. Accordingly a second
Conference of the Untouchables was called. The Untouchables were told that they must come
fully prepared for all eventualities for Satyagraha (i.e., for civil disobedience and even
for going to gaol).

The Hindus, when they came to know of this,
applied to the District Magistrate of Kolaba for issuing an order under Section 144 of the
Criminal Procedure Code against the Untouchables, prohibiting them from entering the
Chawdar Tank and polluting its water. The District Magistrate refused and said that the
tank was a public tank open to all citizens and he could not by law prevent the
Untouchables from taking water therefrom. He advised them to go to a Court of law and get
their right of exclusive user established. The dates fixed for the Conference were 25th,
26th, 27th of December 1927. As these dates drew near, and as they heard that the
Untouchables were quite in earnest, and knowing that the District Magistrate had refused
to come to their rescue, they did the only thing that was open to them, namely, to get
their right to exclude the Untouchables from a public tank established by law.
Accordingly, nine Hindus drawn from different castes joined as Plaintiffs in filing on
12th December 1927 a suit No. 405 of 1927 as representatives of the Hindus, in the Court
of Sub-Judge of Mahad. I and four others were made defendants as representing the
Untouchables. The suit was for obtaining a declaration 'that the said Chawdar tank is of
the nature of private property of the Touchable classes only and that the Untouchable
classes have no right to go to that tank nor take water therefrom and also for obtaining a
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from doing any of those acts.' On the same
day on which the suit was filed, the plaintiffs applied to the Court for a temporary
injunction against the defendants restraining them from going to the tank and taking water
therefrom pending the decision of the suit. The judge holding that it was a fit case,
granted a temporary injunction against me and the other defendants on the 14th December
1927.

The temporary injunction issued by the Judge
was sent to Bombay and was served upon me two or three days before the Conferences
actually met. There was no time to have consultation and no time to postpone the
Conference either. I decided to leave the matter to the Conference to decide.

The Conference was called with the specific
object of establishing the right to take water from the tank, which was challenged by the
Hindus last time. The District Magistrate had left the way open. But here was a Judge who
had issued an order banning such action. Naturally, when the Conference met, the first
question it was called on to consider was whether to disobey the order of injunction
issued by the Court and enter the tank. The District Magistrate who had been favourable to
the Untouchables now took a different view. He explained his view very clearly to the
Conference, which he came and addressed personally. He said that if the Civil Court had
not issued an injunction, he would have helped the Untouchables in their attempt to enter
the tank as against the caste Hindus, but that as the Sub-Judge had issued his order, his
position had become different. He could not allow the Untouchables to go to the tank
because such an act would amount indirectly to help them to break the order of His
Majesty's Court with impunity. He therefore felt bound to issue an order prohibiting the
Untouchables, should they insist on going to the tank notwithstanding the injunction not
because he wanted to favour the Hindus but because he was bound to maintain the dignity of
the Civil Court by seeing to it that its order was respected.

The Conference took what the Collector had
said into its consideration and also the reaction of the Hindus to the attempt of the
Untouchables going to the tank in defiance of the order of the Court, which they had
obtained. In the end, the Conference came to the conclusion that it was better and safer
for them to follow law and see how far it helped them to secure their rights. It was
therefore decided to suspend civil disobedience of the order of the Judge till the finaldecision of the suit.

The occasion for civil disobedience never
came because the Untouchables won the suit and the Hindus lost it. One of the principal
reasons which led the Untouchables to follow law and suspend civil disobedience was that
they wanted to have a judicial pronouncement on the issue whether the custom of untouchability can be recognised by the Court of law as valid.
The rule of law is that a custom to be valid must be immemorial, must be certain and must
not be opposed to morality or public policy. The Untouchables' view is that it is a custom
which is opposed to morality and public policy. But it is no use unless it is declared to
be so by a judicial tribunal. Such a decision declaring the invalidity of the custom of
untouchability would be of great value to the Untouchables in their fight for civil rights
because it would seem illegal to import untouchability in civic matters. The victory of
the Untouchables in the Chawdar tank dispute was very great.
But it was disappointing in one way that the Bombay High Court did not decide the issue
whether the custom of untouchability was valid or not. They decided the case against the
Hindus on the ground that they failed to prove that the custom alleged by them inrespect of the tank was not immemorial. They
held that the custom itself was not proved. The tank became open to the Untouchables. But
the Untouchables cannot be said to have gained their point. The main issue was whether the
custom of untouchability was a legal custom. Unfortunately the High Court avoided to give
judgement on that issue. The Untouchables had to continue their struggle.

IV

The next item in this history of direct
action which is worthy of mention relates to the entry in the famous Hindu Temple at Nasik known as the Kala Ram
Temple. These are instances of direct action aimed to achieve specific objects. The
movement includes two cases ofdirect action
aimed at the demolition of the Hindu Social Order byapplying dynamite to its very foundations. One is the burning of the ManuSmriti and the second is the
mass refusal by the Untouchables to lift the dead cattles belonging to the Hindus and to
skin them.

The Burning of Manu Smriti took place at Mahad on the 20th of December 1927. The function was a part of
the campaign for establishing the right to take water from the Chawdar tank. The Burning
of the Manu Smriti took place publicly and openly in a Conference of Untouchables. Before
burning the Manu Smriti, the Conference passed certain resolutions. As these resolutions
form a land mark in the history of the movement of the Untouchables they are given below:

"Resolution 1.Declaration of the rights of a Hindu. This
conference is firmly of opinion that the present deplorable condition of the Hindu
Community is only an illustration of how a community becomes fallen by reason of its
tolerating social injustice, following erroneous religious beliefs and supporting economic
wrongs. The fall of the Hindu community is due entirely to the fact that the masses have
not cared to know what are the birth-rights of a human being and much less have they cared
to see that they are recognised and not set at naught the base acts and deeds of selfish
people. To know what are these birth-rights of man and to endeavour to see that they are
not trampled upon in the struggle between man and man and
class and class, are the sacred duties of every person. In
order that every Hindu may not know what are in the opinion of the Conference the inalienable birthrights of man, this Conference resolves to issue the
following proclamation containing a list thereof

(0 All Hindus have the same social status
from birth. This equality of social status is an attribute, which they retain till death.
There may be distinctions and differences between them in point of their functions in
society. But that must not cause differences in their social status. This Conference is
therefore opposed to any actionwhether in the political, economic or social field of
life which would result in producing a difference in social status.

(ii) The
ultimate aim of all political, economic or social changes should be to maintain intact the
equal status of all Hindus. That being the view of the Conference, the Conference strongly
disapproves of all literature of the Hindus, whether ancient or modern, which supports in
any way the pernicious doctrine of inequality underlying the Hindu social system.

(iii) All power is derived from the people. The privileges
claimed by any class or individual have no validity if they are not granted by the people.
This Conference therefore repudiates the social and religious privileges enjoyed by some
classes of Hindus in as much as they are founded upon the Vedas,Smritis and Puranas and not
upon the free consent of the people.

(iv) Every person is entitled as his
birthright to liberty of action and speech. This liberty could be limited only for the
purpose of saving the right of another person to his liberty and for no other purposes.
Further this limitation can be imposed only with the sanction of the people and not by any
injunction of the Hindu Shastras. This Conference therefore repudiates all restraints on
religious, social and economic freedom imposed upon the thought and action of the Hindus
in as much as they are imposed by the Shastras and not by the people.

(v) Hindus can be deprived of their rights
other than their birthrights only by law. What is not prohibited by law, a Hindu must be
free to do and what is not obligatory by law, a Hindu must not be forced to do. For this
reason there must be no obstruction to persons using public roads, public wells and tanks,
public temples and all other public utilities. Persons, causing obstruction in matters
where law has laid down no prohibition, are in the opinion of this Conference enemies of
the public.

(vi) Law is not
a command of an individual or a body of individuals. Law is the peoples prescription for
change. That being so, law to be respected, must be made
with the consent of ail and must have equal application to all without any distinction.
Social divisions if they are necessary for the ends of society can only be made on the
basis of worth and not of birth. This Conference repudiates the Hindu caste-system firstly
as being detrimental to society, secondly as being based on birth and thirdly as being
without any sanction from the people." The Second Resolution passed by the Conference
was worked as follows:

" Resolution
No. 2.Taking into consideration the fact that the laws which are proclaimed in
the name of Manu, the Hindu lawgiver, and which are contained in the Manu Smriti and which are recognised as the Code for the Hindus are
insulting to persons of low caste, are calculated to deprive them of the rights of a human
being and crush their personality. Comparing them in the light of the rights of men
recognised all over the civilised world, this conference is of opinion that this Manu
Smriti is not entitled to any respect and is undeserving of being called a sacred book to
show its deep and profound contempt for it, the Conference resolves to burn a copy
thereof, at the end of the proceedings, as a protest against the system of social
inequality it embodies in the guise of religion." A cursory reading of these
resolutions will show the line which the Conference adopted. Although the Conference met
to redress a particular wrong, it showed that it was not going to be satisfied with the
redress of petty wrongs. The Conference felt that the time had arrived for laying down the
goal of the Untouchables. The goal laid down by it was far-reaching. The Conference
proclaimed that the Untouchables wanted a complete overhauling of the Hindu social system.
It proclaimed that this reconstruction must not be on the old foundation of Shastras. It
proclaimed that whatever character of the new foundations, they must be consonant with
justice and equity between Hindu and Hindu and to leave no doubt that in the matter of
this reconstruction, they would not consent to the Hindu shastras being drawn upon. The
Conference not only repudiated them but actually went to the length of burning them to
ashes.

It was an echo of Voltare's denunciation of
the Catholic Church of his time. For the first time a cry was raised against the Hindu
Social Order " Ecraze la Infame". It
is also clear that these resolutions were absolutely revolutionary in character.

The rock on which the Hindu Social Order has
been built is the Manu Smriti. It is a part of the Hindu Scriptures and is therefore
sacred to all Hindus. Being sacred it is infallible. Every Hindu believes in its sanctity
and obeys its injunctions. Manu not only upholds caste and untouchability but gives them a
legal sanction. The burning of the Manu Smriti was a deed of great daring. It was an
attack on the very citadel of Hinduism. The Manu Smriti embodied the spirit of inequality
which is at the base of Hindu life and thought just as the Bastille was the embodiment of
the spirit of the Ancient regime in I France. The burning of the Manu Smriti by the
Untouchables at Mahad in 1927 is an event which has the same significance andimportance in the history of the emancipation of
the Untouchables which the Fall of Bastille had in the liberation of the masses in France
and Europe.

The second instance of direct action against
the frame of the Hindu Social Order itself is the refusal to skin the dead animals
belonging to the Hindus and carrying them.

One often hears the Untouchables being
condemned for having brought upon themselves the curse of untouchability. The main ground
on which this accusation rests is the adoption by the Untouchables as their occupation,
the carrying of the dead animals of the Hindus and skinning them and eating the carrion.

Even so great a friend of the downtrodden as
the Abe Dubois writing about the Pariahs of the
Madras Presidency said:

" What chiefly disgusts other natives is
the revolting nature of the food which the Pariahs eat. Attracted by the smell, they will
collect in crowds round any carrion and contend for the spoil with the dogs, jackals,
crows and other carnivorous animals. They then divide the semi-putrid flesh and carry it
away to their huts, where they devour it, often without rice or anything else to disguise
the flavour. That the animal should have died of disease is of no consequence to them, and
they sometimes secretly poison cows or buffaloes so that they may subsequently feast on
the foul, putrefying remains. The carcasses of animal's that
die in a village belong by right to the thoti or scavenger, who sells the flesh at a
very low price to the other Pariahs in the neighbourhood. When it is impossible to consume
in one day the stock of meat thus obtained, they dry the remainder in the sun, and keep it
in their huts until they run short of their food. There are few Pariah houses where one
does not see festoons of these horrible fragments hanging up; and though the Pariahs
themselves do not seem to be affected by the smell, travellers passing near their village
quickly perceive it and can tell at once the caste of the people living there....

Is it to be wondered at, after what has been
just stated that other castes should hold this in abhorrence? Can they be blamed for
refusing to hold any communication with such savages, or for I obliging them to keep
themselves aloof and to live in the separate hamlets?...."

It is true that this occupation has created a
feeling of repugnance against the Untouchables in the mind of the Hindus. But the Abe or
those who adopt his reasoning forget to raise two very important questions. First is why
do the Untouchables eat carrion? Will the Hindus allow the Untouchables the freedom to
give up skinning and carrying their dead animals? The answer to the question why the
Untouchables eat carrion has already been given in previous chapters.

No one would prefer carrion to flesh meat if
it is available. If the Untouchables have been living on carrion it is not because they
like it. They eat carrion, because there is nothing else on which they can live. This will
be clear to anyone who realises that on account of untouchability they have no way left to
earn a living. All professions have been closed to them. There is no land on the produce
of which they can live. There is no trade, which they can engage in. Their main stay is
therefore the food they collect from the villagers and the carrion, which is left to them.
Without carrion they would literally die of starvation. It is therefore clear that the
fault does not lie with the Untouchables. If the Untouchables eat carrion it is because
the Hindus have left no honourable way of earning a living open to them.

To the second question the answer is equally
clear. If the Untouchables skin and carry the dead animals of the Hindus, it is because
the Untouchables have no choice. They are forced to do it. They would be penalised if they
refused to do it. The penalty is legal. In some provinces the refusal to do this dirty
work is a breach of contract. In other provinces it is a criminal offence involving fines.
In

Provinces like Bombay the Untouchables are
village servants. In their capacity as village servants they have to serve the Government
as well as the Hindu public. In return for this service they are given lands which they
cultivate and on the produce of which they maintain themselves. One of the duties of the
Untouchables is to skin and carry the dead animals of the Hindus in the villages. If the
Untouchables refuse to perform these duties to the Hindu public, the land which they live
on is liable to be confiscated. They have to choose between doing the dirty work or facing
starvation.

In Provinces like the United Provinces,
refusal to do scavenging by sweeper is made an offence. The United Provinces
Municipalities Act II of 1916 contains the following provisions:

Section
201(1)." Should a sweeper who has a customary right to do the
house-scavenging of a house of building (hereinafter called the customary sweeper) fail to
perform such scavenging in a proper way, the occupier of the house or building or the
board may complain to a Magistrate."

(2) "The Magistrate receiving such
complaint shall hold an inquiry and should it appear to him that the customary sweeper has
failed to perform the house-scavenging of the house or building in a proper way or at a
reasonable intervals, he may impose upon such a sweeper a fine which may extend to ten
rupees, and upon a second or any later conviction in regard to the same house or building,
may also direct, the right of the customary sweeper to do the house scavenging the house
or building to be forfeited and thereupon such right shall be forfeited."

Exactly similar provision is to be found in
Section 165 of the Punjab Municipalities Act of 1911. The Punjab Act is an advance over
the U. P. Act, in as much as it provides for punishment of a sweeeper
who is not customary sweeper but a contract-sweeper. The Punjab Act adds:

" (3) Should any sweeper (other than a
customary sweeper), who is under a contract to do house-scavenging of a house or a
building, discontinue to do such house-scavenging without fourteen days' notice to his
employer or without reasonable cause, he shall on conviction be punishable with a fine
which may extend to Rs. ten."

"227. Every order of forfeiture under
Section 165 shall be subject to an appeal to the next superior court, but shall not be
otherwise open to appeal."

People may be shocked to read that there
exists legal provision which sanctions forced labour. Beyond doubt, this is slavery. The
difference between slavery and free labour lies in this. Under slavery a breach of
contract of service is an offence which is punishable with fine or imprisonment. Under
free labour a breach of contract of service is only a civil wrong for which the labourer
is liable only for damages. Judged in the light of this criterion, scavenging is a legal
obligation imposed upon the Untouchables which they cannot escape.

Given these conditions, how can the
Untouchables be accused of doing these dirty work voluntarily?

The question whether the Untouchables can be
accused of having invited the curse of untouchability upon
themselves for doing the dirty work of the Hindus is really beside the point. What is
important to note is that the Conference of the Untouchables which met in Mahad resolved that no Untouchable shall skin the dead animals
of the Hindus, shall carry it or eat the carrion. The object of these resolutions was
two-fold. The one object was to foster among the Untouchables self-respect and
self-esteem. This was a minor object. The major object was to strike a blow at the Hindu
Social Order. The Hindu Social Order is based upon a division of labour which reserves for
the Hindus clean and respectable jobs and assigns to the Untouchables dirty and mean jobs
and thereby clothes the Hindus with dignity and heaps ignominy upon the Untouchables. The
resolution was a revolt against this part of the Hindu Social Order. It aimed at making
the Hindus do their dirty jobs themselves.

This is a brief summery of the history of the
revolt of the Untouchables against the established order of the Hindu. It originated in
Bombay. But it has spread to all parts of India.

HELD AT BAY

I. Hindu reaction to the revolt of the
untouchables.

II. Lawlessmeansforruthlessrepression.

III. Untouchables, a weak force.

IV. Officers who are shameless partisans.

V. A weapon which is made blunt.

I

The story of the revolt of the Untouchables
tells how the old is ringing out and the new is ringing in. What is the reaction of the
Hindus to this revolt? No one who knows anything about it can have any hesitation in
answering this question. For it is clear that his attitude is one of opposition. It might
be difficult to understand why the Hindus should oppose. But there can be no manner of
doubt that he is opposed.

The reasons why the Hindus are opposed to
this fight for rights of the untouchables for their rights will not be difficult to
understand if certain important features of the relationship that is now subsisting
between the Caste Hindus and the Untouchables are borne in mind.

The first and foremost consideration that
must never be forgotten is the sharp division between the Touchables and the Untouchables.
Every village has two parts, the quarters of the Touchables and quarters of the
Untouchables. Geographically the two are separate. There is always an appreciable distance
between the two. At any rate there is no contiguity or proximity between them. The
Untouchables have a distinct name for their quarters such as Maharwada, Mangwada,
Chamrotti, Khaykana, etc. De Jure for the
purposes of revenue administration or postal communication the quarters of the
Untouchables are included in the village. But de
facto it is separate from the village. When the Hindu resident of a village speaks of
the village he means to include in it only the Caste Hindu residents and the locality
occupied by them. Similarly when the Untouchable speaks of the village he means to exclude
from it the Untouchables and the quarters they occupy. Thus, in every village the
Touchables and Untouchables form two separate groups. There is nothing common between
them. They do not constitute a folk. This is the first thing, which must be noted.

The second things to note with regard to this
division of the village into two groups is that these groups are real corporations which,
no one included within them, can escape. As has been well said the American or European
belongs to groups of various kinds, but he "joins " most of them. He of course
is born into a family, but he does not stay in it all his life unless he pleases. He may
choose his own occupation, residence, wife, political party, and is responsible, generally
speaking, for no one's acts but his own. He is an "individual" in a much fuller
sense because all his relationships are settled by himself for himself. The Touchables or
Untouchables are in no sense individuals because all or nearly all of their relationships
are fixed when they are born in a certain group. Their occupation, their dwelling, their
gods and their politics are all determined for them by the group to which they belong.
When the Touchables and Untouchables meet, they meet not as man to man, individual to
individual, but as members of groups or as nationals of two different states.

This fact has an important effect upon the
mutual relationship between the Touchables and Untouchables in a village. The relationship
resembles the relationship between different clans in primitive society. In primitive
society the member of the clan has a claim, but the stranger has no standing. He may be
treated kindly, as a guest, but he cannot demand "justice " at the hands of any
clan but his own. The dealing of clan with clan is a matter of war or negotiations, not of
law; and the clanless man is an outlaw, in fact as well as in name, and lawlessness
against the stranger is therefore lawful. The Untouchable, not being a member of the group
of Touchables, is a stranger. He is not a kindred. He is an outlaw. He cannot claim
justice nor any rights which the Touchable is bound to respect.

The third thing to note is that the
relationship between the two, the Touchables and the Untouchables, has been fixed. It has
become a matter of status. This status has unmistakably given the Untouchables a position
of inferiority vis-a-vis the Touchables. This
inferiority is embodied in a code of social conduct to which the Untouchables must
conform. What kind of code it is, has already been stated. The Untouchable is not willing
to conform to that code. He is not prepared to render unto Caesar what is claimed by
Caesar. The Untouchable wants to have his relationship with the Touchables by contract.
The Touchable wants the Untouchables to live in accordance with the rules of status and
not rise above it. Thus, the two halves of the village, the Touchables and the
Untouchables, are now struggling for resettling what the Touchable thinks is settled
forever. The conflict is centred round one questionWhat is to be the basis of this
relationship? Shall it be contract or shall it be status?

That is the question, which is agitating the
Hindus. The Hindu does not look at the revolt of the Untouchables as an attempt on the
part of the latter for social and economic improvement of their people. He looks at it as
an attempt directed against him, an attempt to equalise. That is why he is opposed.

II

The opposition of the Hindus is a determined
opposition bent on stamping out the revolt at any cost. In this, they are prepared to use
any means and to go to any length. This revolt of the Untouchables has been met with
equally determined attack on the part of the Hindus. How cruel the Hindus can be in
suppressing this revolt of the Untouchables will appear from one or two cases.

On the occasion of the entry of the
Untouchables in the Chawdar Tank at Mahad, in the exercise of their right to take water
from a public place, the assault made upon the Untouchables who had attended the
Conference and taken part in the march upon the Tank has been described in the Bombay
Chronicle in the following terms:

"The procession was a most peaceful one
and everything passed off quietly. But after about two hours some evil minded leaders of
the town raised a false rumour that the depressed classes were planning to enter the
temple of Vireshwar, whereupon a large crowd of riffraff had collected all armed with
bamboo sticks. The crowd soon became aggressive and the whole town at once became a
surging mass of rowdies, who seemed to be out for the blood of the depressed classes.

The depressed classes were busy in taking
their meal before dispersing to their village. When a large part of them had left the
town, the rowdies entered the kitchen where the depressed classes were taking their food.
There would have been a regular battle between the two forces, but the depressed classes
were held back by their leaders, and thus a far more serious riot was averted. The
rowdies, finding no occasion for provocation, began patrolling the main street and
assaulting the members of the depressed classes who, in stray batches, were passing along
on their way to their villages, and committed trespass in the houses of several depressed
class people and gravely assaulted them. In all, the number of wounded among the depressed
classes is supposed to be as large as 20. In this, the attitude of the depressed classes
was as commendable as the attitude of many of the upper classes was unworthy. The
depressed classes assembled vastly outnumbered the upper classes. But as the object of
their leaders was to do everything in a non-violent and absolutely constitutional manner,
they set their faces against any aggression on the part of the depressed classes. It
speaks a great deal in favour of the depressed classes, that, although the provocation
given to them was immense, they kept their self-control. The Mahad Conference has shown
that the upper classes are not willing to allow the depressed classes to enjoy such
elementary civic rights as taking water from public water sources.

The most reprehensible part of the conduct of
the upper caste Hindus in Mahad and Kolaba district was that, messages were sent
immediately to the different villages asking the upper class people there to punish the
delegates of the Conference as soon as they returned to their respective villages. In
obedience to this mandate, assaults were committed on a number of Mahars returning from the Conference either before or after
they reached their villages, where the depressed classes have the disadvantage of being
overwhelmingly outnumbered by the upper caste Hindus. The leaders of the Depressed Classes
have appealed to the authorities for protection and the District officials, including the
District Superintendent of Police are making inquiries on the spot. It must, however be
stated that, if the Resident Magistrate had not allowed two precious hours to pass without
doing anything, the riot would have probably been averted."

The assault committed on the Untouchables as
a result of the Kalaram Temple Satyagraha was no less
severe.

The third instance is more recent and
occurred in the year 1935 in the village of Kavitha in Dholka Taluka of the Ahmedabad
District of the Bombay Presidency.

The Bombay Government having issued orders
requiring the admission of the children of the Untouchables in public schools, it is
reported that :

"On August 8th, 1935, the Untouchables
of the village Kavitha took four of their children to be admitted in the village school.
Many caste Hindus from the village had gathered near the school to

1 This account of the incident is a
translation of the Statement sent to me by the Secretary of the Nava Yuga Mandal of Dholka
witness this. This occasion for admission passed off quietly and nothing untoward
happened."

The next day however the caste Hindus of the
village withdrew their children from the school, as they did not like their children
sitting with those of the Untouchables and getting themselves polluted.

Some time thereafter, an Untouchable from the
village was assaulted by a Brahmin. On August 12th. the male members of the Untouchables
of the village had come to Dholka to file a criminal complaint against the Brahmin in the
Court of the Magistrate. Coming to know that the adult members of the Untouchables were
absent, the Hindus of the village invaded the quarters of the Untouchables. They were
armed with sticks, spears and swords. Among the invaders were caste Hindu women. They
started attacking the old men and women of the Untouchables. Some of these victims fled to
the jungles some shut themselves up. These invaders directed their vehemence against those
Untouchables who were suspected of having taken a lead in the matter of the admission of
their children in the village school. They broke open their doors and not finding them in,
they broke the tiles and rafters of the roofs over their houses.

Terror-stricken, these Untouchable men and
women who are assaulted and beaten were anxious about the safety of those of their elders
who had gone to Dholka and who were expected back that night. The caste Hindus knowing
that the leaders of the Untouchables who had gone to Dholka would be returning sometime in
the night went out of the village fully armed to assault them and had concealed themselves
behind the bushes and shrubs on the way to the village. Having come to know of this, an
old Untouchable woman crept out of the village in the dark, met the leaders who were
returning and informed them that armed gangs of caste Hindus were hiding themselves to
waylay them and that therefore they should not come into the village.

They refused to listen, fearing that the
caste Hindus might do greater mischief in their absence. At the same time they were afraid
that if they did enter they might be assaulted. They therefore decided to wait outside the
village in the fields till after midnight. In the meantime, the gang of caste Hindus who
were in ambush waited and waited and finally gave up the game and retired. The leaders of
the Untouchables entered the village after about 3 a.rn. in the night. If they had come
earlier and met the murderous gang they would probably have been done to death. On seeing
the harm done to person and property, they left the village for Ahmedabad before daybreak
and informed the Secretary of the Harijan Seva Sangh, a body organised by Gandhi to look
after the welfare of the Untouchables. But the Secretary was helpless. Not only did the
caste Hindus use physical violence, but they conspired to make the life of the
Untouchables intolerable. They refused to engage them as labourers; they refused to sell
them foodstuff. They refused to give them facilities for grazing their cattle and they
committed stray assaults on Untouchable men and women. Not only this, but the caste Hindus
in their frenzy poured kerosene oil in the well from which the Untouchables had to get
their supply of drinking water. This they did for days together. The result was that the
Untouchables of the village had no water. When things reached this stage, the Untouchables
thought of filing a criminal complaint before a Magistrate which they did on 17th October,
making some of the caste Hindus as the accused.The strange part of the case is the part played by Gandhi and his Lieutenant, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. With all the knowledge of tyranny and
oppression practised by the caste Hindus of Kavitha against
the Untouchables, all that Mr. Gandhi felt like doing, was to advise the Untouchables to
leave the village. He did not even suggest that the miscreants should be hauled up before
a Court of Law. His henchman, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel, played a part which was still more
strange.

He had gone to Kavitha to persuade the caste
Hindus not to molest the Untouchables. But they did not even give him a hearing. Yet this
very man was opposed to the Untouchables hauling them up in a court of law and getting
them punished. The Untouchables filed the complaint notwithstanding his opposition. But he
ultimately forced them to withdraw the complaint against the caste Hindus making some kind
of a show of an undertaking not to molest, an undertaking, which the Untouchables can
never enforce. The result was that the Untouchables suffered and their tyrants escaped
with the aid of Mr. Gandhi's friend, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel.

This systematic suppression of the
Untouchables is resorted to by the caste Hindus even in small matters such as the wearing
of better clothes or the wearing of jewellery. Two such instances may be cited.

Ill

To whom the victory will go in the end is an
interesting speculation, and those who are leading the movement of the Untouchables, are
carefully watching the situation. Whatever the ultimate result, one thing is plain, that
in this struggle, the odds are heavily against the Untouchables.

In this conflict with the Hindus, the
Untouchables are always at bay. As against caste lawlessness, the Untouchables are always
helpless. The question is, why are the Untouchables always beaten, why are they always at
bay? The question is an important question and needs to be answered.

The reasons why the Untouchables are at bay
in this struggle with the caste Hindus are quite obvious. The first reason is that the two
groups are unequally matched so far as numbers are concerned. In no village do the
Untouchables constitute a considerable body of people as compared with the Caste Hindus.
Most often they are composed of a few families and their number is very small, too small
to give them any power to repel an attack of the caste Hindus. Although the Untouchables
number 50 millions, which appears in lump to be a formidable figure, in fact they are
scattered all over the villages in India so that in each village they form a small
minority pitted against a great majority of the caste Hindus. Strategically speaking the
forces are so badly distributed that they cannot but be overwhelmed by the caste Hindus.

The Mahomedans in the village of some
provinces are in the same position as the Untouchables so far as numbers are concerned.
They are also scattered throughout the villages and in some villages the population of the
Mahomedans is much smaller than the population of the Untouchables. Yet the Mahomedans are
not subjected by the Hindus to the disabilities and the indignities to which the
Untouchables are subjected. This is rather strange, because there is as deep an antagonism
between the Hindus and the Muslims as there is between the Hindus and the Untouchables.
This difference in treatment is due to an advantage which the Muslims have but which the
Untouchables do not have.

It was a rule in all ancient societies that a
stranger was sacred. His person must be guarded from insult and injury. The Romans had
their dii hospitales and the duties towards a
stranger were even more stringent than those towards a relative. " He who has a spark
of caution in him," says Plato " will do his best to pass this life without
sinning against the stranger." It is strange that so much sanctity should have been
attached to the person of a stranger. There is no doubt that this sanctity of the
stranger's person was not due to pure kindness. The whole conduct of group life is opposed
to a general spirit of consideration for those who are outside the group. The real reason
why the stranger was treated as sacred and his person inviolate was because he belonged to
a hostile group, and any injury to him was sure to lead to bloodshed. It was the fear of a
blood feud, which was the cause of this attitude towards the stranger.

The same thing applies to the Mahomedan in a
village. In the eyes of the Hindus he is a stranger. But the Hindus dare not molest him
because they know that any injury to him will be avenged by Muslims in a blood feud with
the Hindus. The communal riots between the Hindus and Mahomedans are really blood feuds
and they are caused by some injury done to a Mahomedan or to some Mahomedan interests. It
is this fear of a blood feud, which makes the life of a Muslim in a Hindu village safe.

There is nobody to avenge an injury done to
an Untouchable. There is no fear of a blood feud. The Hindus therefore can commit any
wrong against the Untouchables with impunity. This is because the Mahomedans are a solid
mass, held together with a deep consciousness of kind, ready to act as one man to
vindicate any wrong to the community or to a member thereof. The Untouchables, on the
other hand, are a disunited body, they are infested with the caste system in which they
believe as much as does the caste Hindu. This caste system among the Untouchables has
given rise to mutual rivalry and jealousy and it has made common action impossible. The
Mahomedans have also a caste system among themselves. Like the Untouchables they are also
scattered all over the country. But their religion is a strong unifying force, which gives
them the feeling that, if they are parts, they are parts of one Muslim Community. There is
nothing to instil such a feeling among the Untouchables. In the absence of any unifying
force, the Untouchables are just fragments with no cement to bind them and their numbers
are therefore of no advantage to them.

A large majority of the Untouchables in the
villages are either village servants or landless labourers. As village servants, they
depend upon the Hindus for their maintenance, and go from door to door every day and
collect bread or cooked food from the Hindus in return for certain customary services
rendered by them to the Hindus. This is a part of their remuneration. A part also of their
remuneration consists in quantities of grain given to them by the Hindus at the harvest
time. Whenever there is a disagreement between the Hindus and the Untouchables, the first
thing the Hindus do is to stop giving bread, stop the payment of the harvest share and
stop employing the Untouchables on any job. The result is that the struggling hoards of
the Untouchables are face to face with starvation.

The Untouchables have no way of earning a
living open to them in a village. He cannot do any business such as selling milk or
vegetables. Because he is an Untouchable no one will buy these things from him. He cannot
take to any trade because, all trades being hereditary, no one will accept his service.
His economic dependence upon the Hindu is complete and the Hindu takes a complete
advantage of it whenever the Untouchables prove arrogant, or naughty in the eyes of the
Touchables.

Not only is the Untouchable dependent upon
the Touchable for earning his livelihood but the Untouchable is also dependent upon the
Touchables for the purchase of his necessaries of life. In a village all shops belong to
the Touchables. Trade is, and must necessarily be, in the hands of the Touchables. An
Untouchable has to depend upon the Touchable shopkeepers for their shopping. If the
Touchable shopkeeper is willing to sell, the Untouchables can obtain the necessaries of
life. If the shopkeeper refuses to sell, the Untouchable must starve although they might
have money to live on. Now whenever any dispute arises between the Touchables and the
Untouchables the one thing the Touchables never fail to do is to command the shopkeepers
not to sell anything to the Untouchables. The Touchables constitute an organised
conspiracy to bring about a cessation of all economic relationship with Untouchables. A
war is proclaimed against the Untouchables. The means used for reducing the
"enemy" is to send a " punitive expedition " consisting of rascals
into the Untouchable quarters who ruthlessly carry on arson of destruction of property and
shamelessly commit acts of violence against all including women and children.

The more common and the more effective
weapons is the declaration of complete boycott against the offending Untouchables. The
horrors of the boycott, which is merely another name for Gandhi's "
noncooperation", can hardly be adequately described. The Committee appointed by the
Government of Bombay to inquire into the grievances of the Backward Classes speaks of the
social boycott in the following terms:

"Although we have recommended various
remedies to secure to the Untouchables their rights to all public utilities we fear that
there will be difficulties in the way of their exercising them for a long time to come.
The first difficulty is the fear of open violence against them by the orthodox classes. It
must be noted that the Untouchables are a small minority in every village, opposed to
which is a great majority of the orthodox who are bent on protecting their interests and
dignity from any supposed invasion by the Untouchables at any cost. The danger of
prosecution by the police has put a limitation upon the use of violence by the orthodox
classes and consequently such cases are rare.

The second difficulty arises from the
economic position in which the Untouchables are found today. The Untouchables have no
economic independence in most parts of the Presidency. Some cultivate lands of the
orthodox classes as their tenants at will. Others live on their earnings as farm labourers
employed by the orthodox classes, and the rest subsist on the food or grain given to them
by the orthodox classes in lieu of service rendered to them as village servants. We have
heard of numerous instances where the orthodox classes have used their economic power as a
weapon against those Depressed classes in their villages, when the latter have dared to
exercise their rights and have evicted them from their land, and stopped their employment
and discontinued their remuneration as village servants. The boycott is often planned on
such an extensive scale as to include the prevention of the Untouchables from using the
commonly used paths and the stoppage of the sale of the necessaries of life by the village
bania or shopkeeper. According to the evidence small causes suffice for the proclamation
of a social boycott against the Untouchables. Frequently it follows on the exercise by the
Untouchables of their right to the use of the common well, but cases have been by no means
rare where stringent boycott has been proclaimed simply because an Untouchable man has put
on a sacred thread, has bought a piece of land, has put on good clothes or ornaments, or
has led a marriage procession with the bride-groom on the horse through the public street.

We do not know of any weapon more effective
than this social boycott which could have been invented for the suppression of the
Untouchables. The method of open violence pales away before it, for it has the most far
reaching and deadening effects. It is the more dangerous because it passes as a lawful
method consistent with the theory of freedom of contract. We agree that this tyranny of
the majority must be put down with a firm hand if we are to guarantee to the Untouchables
the freedom of speech and action necessary for their uplift."

IV

The third circumstance which adds to the
helplessness of the Untouchables is the impossibility for the Untouchables to obtain any
protection from the police or justice from the courts. The police are drawn from the ranks
of the caste Hindus. The Magistracy is drawn from the ranks of the Caste Hindus. The
police and the magistracy are the kith and kin of the caste Hindus. They share the
sentiments and the prejudices of the caste Hindus against the Untouchables. If an
Untouchable goes to a police officer with a complaint against the caste

Hindus instead of receiving any protection he
will receive plenty of abuse. Either he will be driven away without his complaint being
recorded or, if it is recorded, it would be recorded quite falsely to provide a way of
escape to the Touchable aggressors. If he prosecutes his offenders before a Magistrate the
fate of his proceedings could be foretold. He will never get Touchable witnesses because
of the conspiracy of the villagers. If he brings witnesses from the Untouchables the
Magistrate will not accept their testimony because they are interested and not independent
witnesses or, if they are independent witnesses, the Magistrate has an easy way of
acquitting the accused by simply saying that the complainant Untouchable did not strike
him as a truthful witness. He can do this fearlessly because he knows full well that the
higher tribunal will not reverse his finding because of the well-established rule which
says that an appellate court should not disturb the finding of a Magistrate based upon the
testimony of witness whose demeanour he had observed. This fact has now been admitted even
by Congress workers among the Untouchables.

The Annual Report of the Tamil Nad Harijan Sevak Sangh for the year ending September 30, 1937, says:
"The political consciousness of the Harijan having been roused by the rights, in the
remotest villages where it is only the policeman that reigns, it is not always possible
for the Harijan to do this, for the assertion of his rights means a clash between him and
the castemen, in which it is always the latter that have the upper hand. The natural
consequence of this scuffle is a complaint either to the police or the magistrate. The
latter course is beyond the means of a Harijan, while the former resort is worse than
useless. The complaints are in many cases not inquired into at all, while in others a
verdict favourable to the castemen is entered. Our complaints to the police also meet with
similar fate. The trouble seems to us to be this : there is no change in the mentality of
the lower policemen. Either he is unaware of the rights of the Harijans of which he is
supposed to be the guardian, or he is influenced by castemen. Or it may also be that he is
absolutely indifferent. In other cases corruption is responsible for this taking the side
of the richer castemen". (Hindu, March 7, 1938).

This means that the official is
anti-Untouchable and pro-Hindu. Whenever he has any authority or discretion it is always
exercised to the prejudice of the Untouchable.

The police and the magistrate are sometimes
corrupt. If they were only corrupt, things would not perhaps be so bad because an officer
who is corrupt is open to purchase by either party. But the additional misfortune is that
the police and magistrates are often more partial than corrupt. It is this partiality to
the Hindus and his antipathy to the Untouchables, which results in the denial of
protection and justice to the Untouchables. There is no cure to this partiality to the one
and antipathy to the other. It is founded in the social and religious repugnance, which is
inborn in every Hindu. The police and the Magistrate by reason of their motives, interest
and their breeding do not sympathise with the living forces operating among the
Untouchables. They are not charged with the wants, the pains, the cravings and the
desires, which actuate the Untouchables. Consequently they are openly hostile and inimical
to their aspirations, do not help them to advance, disfavour their cause and snap at
everything that smacks of pride and self-respect. On the other hand they share the
feelings of the Hindus, sympathise with them in the attempt to maintain their power,
authority, prestige and their dignity over the Untouchables. In any conflict between the
two they act as the agents of the Hindus in suppressing this revolt of the Untouchables
and participate quite openly and without shame in the nefarious attempt of all Hindus to
do everything possible by all means, fair or foul, to " teach the Untouchables a
lesson ", and hold them down in their ownplace.

The worst of it is that all this injustice
and persecution can be perpetrated within the limits of the law. A Hindu may well say that
he will not employ an Untouchable, that he will not sell him anything, that he will evict
him from his land, that he will not allow him to take his cattle across his field, without
offending the law in the slightest degree. In doing this he is only exercising his right.
The law does not care with what motive he does it. The law does not see what injury it
causes to the Untouchable. The police may misuse his power and his authority. He may
deliberately falsify the record by taking down something which has not been stated or by
taking down something which is quite different from what has been stated. He may disclose
evidence to the side in which he is interested. He may refuse to arrest. He may do a
hundred and one things to spoil the case. All this he can do without the slightest fear of
being brought to book. The loopholes of law are many, and he knows them well. The
magistrate has vested in him an enormous amount of discretion. He is free to use it. The
decision of a case depends upon the witnesses who can give evidence. But the decision of
the case depends upon whether the witnesses are reliable or not. It is open to the
magistrate to believe one side and disbelieve the other side. He may be quite arbitrary in
believing one side, but it is his discretion, and no one can interfere with it. There are
innumerable cases in which this discretion has been exercised by the Magistrate to the
prejudice of the Untouchables. However truthful the witnesses of the Untouchables, the
magistrates have taken a common line by saying " I disbelieve the witnesses ",
and no body has questioned that discretion. What sentence to inflict is also a matter of
discretion with the magistrate.

There are sentences which are appealable and
there are sentences which are non-appealable. An appeal is a way of getting redress. But
this way may be blocked by a magistrate by refusing to give an appealable sentence.Such are the forces which are arrayed
against the struggling Untouchables. There is simply no way to overcome them because there
is no legal way of punishing a whole society which is organized to set aside the law.

V

One way of lessening these difficulties they
certainly cannot be overcome was open to the Untouchables. That way lay through politics
and through effective use of political power. But in this matter the Untouchables have
been foiled.

Any one who reads of the lawlessness of the
Hindus in suppressing the movement of the untouchables, I am sure will be shocked. Why
does the Hindu indulge in this lawlessness is a question he is sure to ask and none will
say that such a question will not be a natural question and in the circumstances of the
case a very pertinent questionWhy should an untouchable be tyrannized if he wears
clean clothes ? How can it hurt a Hindu. Why should an untouchable be molested because he
wants to put a tiled roof on his house ? How can it injure a Hindu? Why should an
untouchable be persecuted because he is keen to send his children to school? How does a
Hindu suffer thereby? Why should an untouchable be compelled to carry dead animals, eat
carrion, and beg his food from door to door? Where is the loss to the Hindu if he gives
these things up. Why should a Hindu object if an untouchable desires to change his
religion? Why should his conversion annoy and upset a Hindu? Why should a Hindu feel
outraged if an untouchable calls himself by a decent, respectable name? How can a good
name taken by an untouchable adversely affect the Hindu? Why should the Hindu object if an
untouchable builds his house facing the main road? How can he suffer thereby? Why should
the Hindu object if the sound made by an untouchable falls upon his ears on certain days?
It cannot deafen him. Why should a Hindu feel resentment if an untouchable enters a
profession, obtains a position of authority, buys land, enters commerce, becomes
economically independent and is counted among the well-to-do ? Why should all Hindus
whether officials or non-officials make common cause to suppress the untouchables? Why
should all castes otherwise quarreling among themselves combine to make, in the name
Hinduism, a conspiracy to hold the untouchables at bay?

All this of course sounds like a fiction. But
one who has read the tales of Hindu tyranny recounted in the last chapter will know that
beneath these questions there is the foundation of facts. The facts, of course, are
stranger than fiction. But the strangest thing is that these deeds are done by Hindus who
are ordinarily timid even to the point of being called cowards. The Hindus are ordinarily
a very soft people. They have none of the turbulence or virulence of the Muslims. But,
when so soft a people resort without shame and without remorse to pillage, loot, arson and
violence on men, women and children, one is driven to believe that there must be a deeper
compelling cause which maddens the Hindus on witnessing this revolt of the untouchables
and leads them to resort to such lawlessness.

There must be some explanation for so
strange, so inhuman a way of acting. What is it?

If you ask a Hindu, why he behaves in this
savage manner, why he feels outraged by the efforts which the untouchables are making for
a clean and respectable life, his answer will be a simple one. He will say: " What
you call the reform by the untouchables is not a reform. It is an outrage on our Dharma
". If you ask him further where this Dharma of his is laid down, his answer will
again be a very simple one. He will reply, "Our Dharma is contained in our
Shastras". A Hindu in suppressing what, in the view of an unbiased man, is a just
revolt of the untouchables against a fundamentally wrong system by violence, pillage,
arson, and loot, to a modern man appears to be acting quite irreligiously, or, to use the
term familiar to the Hindus, he is practising Adharma.
But the Hindu will never admit it. The Hindu believes that it is the untouchables who are
breaking the Dharma and his acts of lawlessness
which appear as Adharma are guided by his sacred duty to restore Dharma. This is an
answer, the truth of which cannot be denied by those who are familiar with the psychology
of the Hindus. But this raises a further question: What are these Dharma which the
Shastras have prescribed and what rules of social relationship do they ordain ? II

The word Dharma is of Sanskrit origin. It is one of those
Sanskrit words which defy all attempts at an exact definition. In ancient times the word
was used in different senses although analogous in connotation. It would be interesting to
see how the word Dharma passed through
transitions of meaning*[f16]. But this is hardly the place for it. It is sufficient to
say that the word dharma soon acquired a definite meaning which leaves no doubt as to what
it connotes. The word Dharma means the privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his
standard of conduct as a member of the Hindu community, as a member of one of the castes,
and as a person in a particular stage of life.The
principal sources of Dharma, it is agreed by all Hindus, are the Vedas, the Smritis and
customs. Between the Vedas and Smritis, so far as Dharma is concerned, there is however
this difference. The rules of Dharma, as we see them in their developed form, have
undoubtedly their roots in the Vedas, and it is therefore justifiable to speak of the
Vedas as the source of Dharma. But the Vedas do not profess to be formal treatises on Dharma. They do not contain positive precepts ( Vidhis) on matters of Dharma in a connected form.
They contain only disconnected statements on certain topics concerned with Dharma. On the other hand, Smritis are formal
treatises on Dharma. They contain enactments as to the Dharma. They form the law of the
Dharma in the real sense of the term. Disputes as to what is Dharma and what is not Dharma
(Adharma) can be decided only by reference to the text of the law as given in the Smritis.
The Smritis form, therefore, the real source of what the Hindu calls Dharma, and, as they
are the authority for deciding which is Dharma and which is not, the Smritis are called
Dharmashastras (scriptures) which prescribe the rules of Dharma.

The number of Smritis which have come down
from ancient times have been variously estimated. The lowest number is five and the
highest a hundred. What is important to bear in mind is that all these Smritis are not
equal in authority. Most of them are obscure. Only a few of them were thought to be
authoritative enough for writers to write commentaries thereon. If one is to judge of the
importance of a Smriti by the test as to whether or not it has become the subject matter
of a commentary, then the Smritis which can be called standard and authoritative will be
the Manu Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti and the Narada Smriti. Of these Smritis the Manu
Smriti stands supreme. It is pre-eminently the source of all Dharma.

To understand what is the Dharma for which
the Hindu is ready to wage war on the untouchables, one must know the rules contained in
the Smritis, particularly those contained in the Manu Smriti. Without some knowledge of
these rules, it would not be possible to understand the reaction of the Hindus to the
revolt of the untouchables. For our purpose it is not necessary to cover the whole field
of Dharma in all its branches as laid down in the Smritis. It is enough to know that
branch of the Dharma which in modern parlance is called the law of persons, or to put it
in non-technical language, that part of the Dharma which deals with right, duty or
capacity as based on status.

I therefore propose to reproduce below such
texts from Manu Smriti as are necessary to give a complete idea of the social organization
recognized by Manu and the rights and duties prescribed by him for the different classes
comprised in his social system.

The social system as laid down by Manu has
not been properly understood and it is therefore necessary to utter a word of caution
against a possible misunderstanding. It is commonly said and as commonly believed that
what Manu does is to prescribe a social system which goes by the name of Chaturvarnaa technical name for a social system in which all
persons are divided into four distinct classes. Many are under the impression that this is
all that the Dharma as laid down by Manu prescribes. This is a grievous error and if not
corrected is sure to lead to a serious misunderstanding of what Manu has in fact
prescribed and what is the social system he conceived to be the ideal system.

I think this is an entire misreading of Manu.
It will be admitted that the divisions of society into four classes comprised within
Chaturvarna is not primary with Manu. In a sense this division is secondary to Manu. To
him it is merely an arrangement inter se between
those who are included in the Chaturvarna. To many, the chief thing is not whether a man
is a Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra. That is a division which has existed before
him. Manu added, accentuated and stratified that difference. The division did not
originate with him. But what did originate with Manu is a new division between (1) those
who are within the pale of Chaturvarna and (2) those who are outside the pale of
Chaturvarna. This new social division is original to Manu. This is his addition to the
ancient Dharma of the Hindus. This division is fundamental to Manu because he was the
first to introduce it and recognize it by the stamp of his authority.

The texts which have a bearing on the subject
must therefore be arranged under two heads (1) texts relating to those who are within the
Chaturvarna and (2) texts relating to those who are outside the Chaturvarna.

I. Those
within the Pale of the Chaturvarna. Their origin and their duties

(1)[f17]This (Universe) existed in the shape of
Darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, untenable by reasoning, unknowable,
wholly immersed, as it were in a deep sleep.

(2) [f18]Then the divine self existent (Svayambhu, himself)
indiscernible (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest discernible,
appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness.

(3)[f19] But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds, he caused
the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra to proceed from his mouth, his
arms, his thighs and his feet.

(4)[f20] But in order to protect this Universe. He, the most
resplendent one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his
mouth, arms, thighs and feet.

(5)[f21]To the Brahmans he assigned teaching and studying (the
Vedas), sacrificing (performing sacrificial ceremonies) for their own benefit and for
others, giving and accepting (of alms).

(6)[f22]The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow
gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to
sensual pleasures.

(7)[f23]The Vaishya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer
sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money and to cultivate the land.

(8)[f24]One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudra, to
serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

(9)[f25]A student, an apprentice, a hired servant, and fourthly an
official; these must be regarded as labourers. Slaves are those who are born in the house
and the rest.

(10)[f26]The sages have distinguished five sorts of attendants
according to law. Among these are four sorts of labourers (mentioned above). The slaves
(are the fifth category, of which they are) fifteen species.

(11)[f27]One born at (his master's) house; one purchased; one
received by gift; one obtained by inheritance; one maintained during a general famine; one
pledged by his rightful owner.

(12)[f28]One released from a heavy debt; one made captive in a fight;
one won through a wager, one who has come forward declaring ' I am thine' an apostate from
asceticism; one enslaved for a stipulated period.

(13)[f29]One who has become a slave in order to get a maintenance;
one enslaved on account of his connection with a female slave; and one self sold. These
are fifteen classes of slaves as declared in law.

(14)[f30]Among
these the four named first cannot be released from bondage, except by the favour of their
owners. Their bondage is hereditary.

(15)[f31]The sages have declared that the state of dependence is
common to all these; but that their respective position and income depends on their
particular caste and occupation.

2 Those
outside the Pale of Chaturvarna. Their origin and their duties.

This is what Manu has to say about their
origin and their position.

(1)[f32]All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the
community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman),
are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of
the Aryans.

(2)[f33]Near well-known trees and burial ground, on mountains and in
groves, let these (tribes) dwell, known (by certain marks), and subsisting by their
peculiar occupations.

(3) [f34]But the dwellings of the Chandalas and Shwapakas shall be
outside the village, they must be made apapatras and their wealth (shall be) dogs and
donkeys.

(4)[f35]Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall
eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron (shall be) there ornaments, they must
always wander from place to place.

(5)[f36]A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek
intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be) among themselves and their marriages
with their equals.

(6)[f37]Their food shall be given to them by others (than an Aryan
giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in villages and in towns.

(7)[f38]By day they must go about for the purpose of their work,
distinguished by marks at the King's command, and they shall carry out the corpses (of
persons) who have no relatives, that is a settled rule.

(8) [f39]By the King's order they shall always execute the Criminals
in accordance with the law, and they shall take for themselves the clothes, the beds and
the ornaments of (such) criminals.

(9)[f40]He who has had connection with a woman of one of the lowest
castes shall be put to death.

(10)[f41]If one who (being a member of the Chandalas or some other
low caste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of
a twice born caste) may be touched (by other twice born persons only) he shall be put to
death.

I have already said, that to Manu, this
division between those who are within the pale of Chaturvama and those who are outside of
it was a division which was real. It was so real that Manu calls those who were outside
the pale of Chaturvama by the name Bahayas which
means excluded i.e. excluded from or outside of the system of Chaturvama. It was a
division to which he attached far reaching consequences. This division was intended to
result in a difference of status and citizenship. It is true that all those who are within
the pale of Chaturvarna are not all on the same level. Within the Chaturvarna there are
the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Slaves all unequal in status. Still they
are within the Chaturvarna. Those within the Chaturvarna have a status in the eye of the
law of Manu and a respect in the eye of the public. Those outside it have no respect in
the eye of that society. The difference is also one of citizenship. Those within the
Chaturvarna have rights to enjoy and remedies to enforce them. Those outside the
Chaturvarna have no rights and no remedies.

This difference between those who are within
the Chaturvarna and those outside of it have a kind of resemblance to the difference
between civics i.e. citizens and preregenis or hostis i.e. non-citizens in the early Roman
Law. The early law of Rome was essentially personalnot territorial. A man enjoyed
the benefit of its institutions and of its protection, not
because he happened to be within Roman territory, but because he was a citizenone of
those by whom and for whom its law was established. The story of the early jus getium was that a man sojourning within the
bounds of a foreign state was at the mercy of the latter and its citizens; that he himself
might be dealt with as a slave, all that belonged to him appropriated by the first comer.
For he was outside the pale of the law. Under the
jus civile the private rights which were peculiar to a Roman citizen were summed up in
three abstract terms, Conubium, Commercium and Actio.Conubiumwas
the capacity to enter into a marriage which would be productive of the paluapotestas and
agnation which in their turn were the foundation of intestate succession, guardianship
etc. Commercium was the capacity for acquiring
or alienating property. Actio was the capacity
to bring a suit in a Court of law for the vindication, protection, or enforcement of a
right either included in or flowing from connubium or commercium, or directly conferred by statute. These three capacities were enjoyed only
by the Roman Citizens. A noncitizen was entitled to none of these rights.

Ill

The division between classes who are within
the Chaturvarna and those who are without it though real and fundamental is undoubtedly
archaic in its terminology. The system of Chaturvarna is no longer operative as law. It is
therefore somewhat academic to speak of classes being within Chaturvarna and without
Chaturvarna. The question will be asked, what are the modern counterparts of these ancient
classes ? The question is perfectly legitimate especially as
I have to explain how the ancient law of Manu is responsible
for the present day lawlessness of the Hindus. Although I am using archaic language, two
things will show that my thesis is true. The first is that the ancient social divisions of
Manu are not without their counterpart in modern times.

The modern counterparts of those ancient divisions are Hindus and
untouchables. Those whom Manu included within the Chaturvarna correspond
to the modern composite class called Hindus. Those whom Manu called Bahayas (outside the Chaturvarna) correspond to the present day
untouchables of India. The dividing line between the four classesBrahman,Kshatriya,Vaishya and Shudraincluded within Chaturvarna have in
modern times become some what blurred and there has been some degree of amalgamation
between them. But the line which Manu drew between those within the Chaturvarna from those
outside the Chaturvarna is still clear and is not allowed to be effaced or crossed.

That line is the line which at present
separates the Hindus from the untouchables. The first thing that is clear is that the
ancient divisions have descended to modern times. The only change is the change of names.

The second question is, has the law as laid
down by Manu for the Bahayas any counterpart in the present day social relationship
between the Hindus and the Untouchables ? To those who doubt I ask to take the following
case into consideration. The incident has occurred in the Ramnad District of the Madras
Presidency.

In December 1930 the Kallar in Ramanad
propounded eight prohibitions, the disregard of which led to the use of violence by the
Kallar against the untouchables whose huts were fired, whose granaries and property were
destroyed, and whose livestock was looted. These eight prohibitions were as follows
:

" (i) that the Adi-Dravidas shall not
wear ornament of gold and silver;

(ii) that the males should not be allowed to
wear their clothes below their knees or above the hips;

(iii) that their males should not wear coats
or shirts or baniyans; (iv) No Adi-Dravida should be allowed to have his hair cropped. (v)
that the Adi-Dravidas should not use other than earthenware vessels in their homes;

(vi) their women shall not be allowed to
cover the upper portion of their bodies by clothes or ravukais or thavanies;

(vii) their women shall not be allowed to use
flowers or saffron paste; and

(viii) the men shall not use umbrellas for
protection against sun and rain nor should they wear sandals ".

In June 1931, the eight prohibitions not
having been satisfactorily observed by the exterior castes in question, the Kallar met
together and framed eleven prohibitions, which went still further than the original eight,
and an attempt to enforce these led to more violence.

These eleven prohibitions were :

"1. The Adi-Dravidas and Devendrakula
Vellalar? should not wear clothes below their knees.

2. The men and women of the above-said
depressed classes should not wear gold jewels.

3. The women should carry water only in mud
pots and not in copper or brass vessels. They should use straw only to carry the water
pots and no clothes should be used for that purpose.

4. Their children should not read and get
themselves literate or Educated.

5. The children should be asked only to tend
the cattle of the Mirasdars.

6. Their men and women should work as slaves
of the Mirasdars, in their respective Pannais.

7. They should not cultivate the land either
on waram or lease from the Mirasdars.

8. They must sell away their own lands to
Mirasdars of the village at very cheap rates, and if they don't do so, no water will be
allowed to them to irrigate their lands. Even if something is grown by the help of rain
water, the crops should be robbed away, when they are ripe for harvest.

9. They must work as coolies from 7 a.m. to 6
p.m. under the Mirasdars and their wages shall be for men RS. 0-4-0 per day and for women
Rs. 0-2-0 per day.

10. The above said communities should not use
Indian Music (melam etc.) in their marriages and other celebrations.

11. They must stop their habit of going on a
horse in procession before tying the Thali thread in
marriage and they must use their house doors as palanquins for the marriage processions,
and no vehicle should be used by them for any purpose". Compare these prohibitions
laid down by the Hindus of Ramnad with the prohibitions
contained in the texts of Manu quoted earlier in this
chapter against the untouchables.

Is there any difference between the law laid
down by Manu for the Bahayas
and the conditions imposed upon the untouchables by the Kallars
in 1931 ? After this evidence, who can doubt that the Hindu in doing what appears to be an
Adharma to a non-Hindu is merely asking the untouchables to follow the Dharma as
prescribed by Manu.

Take another case. Those of the Balais of the
Central India. The Balais are an untouchable community. About the year 1927, the Balais
started a compaign of social improvement of their community and had made rules prescribing
that the members of their community should not do certain kinds of work which is degrading
and should dress in a certain manner. These rules did not in any way affect the interests
of the Caste Hindus. But the Caste Hindus took offence at this effort of the Balais to
raise themselves above the status prescribed by custom and they decided to deal a deadly
blow to what they regarded as the insolence of the Balais. The following is the report
which appeared in the papers of how the Caste Hindus dealt with the rebellious Balais. [f42]

Tyranny of Hindus

Rules
for Balais

Mode
of Life Laid Down

"Last May (1927) High Caste Hindus, viz,
Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins, including the patels and putwaris of villages Kanaria,
Bicholee Hafsi, Mardana and of about 15 other villages in the Indore District, informed
the Balais of their respective village that if they wished to live among them, they must
conform to the following rules:

(1) Balais must not wear gold lace bordered
pugrees; (2) they must not wear dhoties with coloured or fancy borders; (3) they must
convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives of the deceasedno matter
how far away these relatives might be living; (4) in all Hindu marriages, the Balais must
play music before the processions, and during the marriage; (5) the Balai women must not
wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns, or jackets; (6) Balai women
must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women; (7) the Balais must render services
without demanding remuneration, and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give; (8)
if the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms, they must clear out of the villages.

BALAIS
REFUSE COMPLIANCE

"The Balais refused to comply; and the
Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water from the
village wells, they were not allowed to let their cattle graze. Balais were prohibited
from passing through land owned by a Hindu; so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindus also
led their cattle to graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar
against these persecutions; but as they could get no timely relief, and the operation
continued, hundreds of Balais, with their wives and children, were obliged to abandon
their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations and migrate to adjoining
States, viz., to villages in Dhar,Dewas, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States.

COMPULSORY
AGREEMENT

" Only a few days ago the Hindus of Reoti village, barely seven miles to
north of Indore City, ordered the Balais to sign a stamped agreement in accordance with
the rules framed against the Balais by the Hindus of other villages. The Balais refused to
comply. It is alleged that some of them were beaten by the Hindus; and one Balai was
fastened to a post, and was told that he would be let go on agreeing to sign the
agreement. He signed the agreement and was released. Some Balais from this village ran up
to the Prime Minister the next day, i.e. on the 20th December, and made a complaint about
the ill treatment they received from the Hindu villagers of Reoti. They were sent to the
Subha of the district. This officer, with the help of the police, made inquiries at the
village, and recommended that action be taken against the Hindus under section 342 and 147
and against the Balais under section 147, Indian Penal Code.

Balais leave villages

Caste
Tyranny

Ignorance
of law a handicap

" There has been no improvement in the
treatment of the Balais by the Hindu residents of certain villages. Balais, it has already
been reported, have been ill treated by the higher caste Hindus. From the Dopalpur Pargana
alone, Indore District, a large number of Balais have had to leave their homes and find
shelter in adjoining States. The villages from which Balais have been forced to clear out
are Badoli, Ahirkharal, Piploda, Morkhers, Pamalpur,Karoda, Chatwada, Newri, Pan, Sanauda,
Ajnoti, Khatedi and Sanavada. Pamalpur village has been altogether deserted and not a
Balai man, woman or child is to be found there. Nanda Balai a resident of one of the above
villages, it is alleged, was severely beaten by the Hindus of the village. In one village,
the report goes, the Hindus burnt down all the dwellings of the Balais but the offenders
have not yet been traced.

" Balais are ignorant village folk, who
are ignorant of legal procedure and think that if a petition is sent to the Sirkar all
that is required will be done for them. They have not the knowledge; or the means and
practices, to pursue a complaint to its end; and, as they, it is said in some cases,
failed to attend or produce witnesses in support of their allegations, the magistrate had
no alternative but to dismiss their complaint."

Looked at from the point of view of Dharma
and Adharma, can it be doubted that underneath the
lawlessness and ruthlessness of the Hindus in suppressing the revolt of the untouchables,
they are actuated by what they think a noble purpose of preventing an outrage upon their
Dharma ?

IV

It may well be asked how much of this Dharma of Manu
now remains? It must be admitted that as law in the sense of rules which a Court of
Judicature is bound to observe in deciding disputes, the Dharma of Manu has ceased to have
any operative force-except in matters such as marriage succession etc. matters which
affect only the individual. As Law governing social conduct and civic rights it is
inoperative. But if it has gone out as law, it remains as custom.

Custom is no small a thing as compared to
Law. It is true that law is enforced by the state through its police power; custom, unless
it is valid it is not. But in practice this difference is of no consequence. Custom is
enforced by people far more effectively than law is by the state. This is because the
compelling force of an organized people is far greater than the compelling force of the
state.

Not only has there been no detriment to its enforceability on account of its having ceased to be law in the
technical sense but there are circumstances which are sufficient to prevent any loss of
efficacy to this Dharma of Manu.

Of these circumstances the first is the force of
custom. There exists in every social group certain (habits[f43]) not only to acting, but of feeling and
believing, of valuing, of approving and disapproving which embody the mental habitudes of
the group. Every new comer whether he comes in the group by birth or adoption is
introduced into this social medium. In every group there goes on the process of
persistently forcing these mental habitudes of the group upon the attention of each new
member of the group. Thereby the group carries on the socialization of the individual of
the shaping of the mental and practical habits of the new comer. Being dependent upon thegroup he can no more repudiate the mental
habitudes of the group than he can the condition and regulation of his physical
environment. Indeed, so dependent the individual is on the group that he readily falls in
line and allows the current ways of esteeming and behaving prevailing in the community, to
become a standing habit of his own mind. This socializing process of the individual by the
group has been graphically described by Grote. He says

" This aggregate of beliefs and
predispositions to believe, ethical, Religious, Aesthetical, and Social respecting what is
true, or false, probable or improbable, just or unjust, holy or unholy, honourable or
base, respectable or contemptible, pure or impure, beautiful or ugly, decent or indecent,
obligatory to do, or obligatory to avoid, respecting the status and relations of each
individual in the society, respecting even the admissible fashions of amusement and
recreationthis is an established fact and condition of things, the real origin of
which for the most part unknown, but which each new member of the group is born to and
finds subsisting..... It becomes a part of each person's nature, a standing habit of mind,
or fixed set of mental tendencies, according to which particular experience is interpreted
and particular persons appreciated..... The community hate,
despise or deride any individual member who proclaims his dissent from their social
creed..... Their hatred manifests itself in different ways..... At the very best by
exclusion from that amount of forbearance, good will and estimation without which the life
of an individual becomes insupportable."[f44]

But what is it that helps to bring about this
result ? Grote has himself answered this question. His
answer is that, this is due to " Nomos (Law and Custom), King of all " (which Herodotus cites from Pindar) exercises plenary
power, spiritual and temporal, over individual minds, moulding the emotions as well as the
intellect, according to the local type.... and reigning
under the appearance of habitual, self suggested tendencies.

What all this comes to is that, when in any
community, the ways of acting, feeling, believing, or valuing or of approving and
disapproving have become crystallised into customs and traditions, they do not need any
sanction of law for their enforcement. The amplitude of plenary powers which the group can
always generate by mass action is always ready to see that they are not broken.

The same thing applies to the Dharma laid down by Manu. This Dharma of Manu,
by reason of the governing force which it has had for centuries, has become an integral
and vital part of the customs andtraditions
of the Hindus. It has become ingrained and has given colour to their life blood. As law it
controlled the actions of the Hindus. Though now a custom, it does not do less. It moulds
the character and determines the outlook of generation after generation.

The second thing which prevents the Dharma of
Manu from fading away is that the law does not prevent its propagation. This is a
circumstance which does not seem to be present to the minds of many people. It is said
that one of the blessings of the British Rule is that Manu Smriti has ceased to be the law
of the land. That the Courts are not required to enforce the provisions contained in Manu
Smriti as rules of law is undoubtedly a great blessingwhich might not be
sufficiently appreciated except by those who were crushed beneath the weight of this
" infamous " thing. It is as great a blessing to
the untouchables as the Reformation was to the peoples of Europe. At the same time it must
be remembered that the Reformation would not have been a permanent gain if it had been
followed by what is called the Protestant Revolution.

The essential features of the Protestant
Revolution as I understand them are:

(1)That the state is supreme
and the Church is subordinate to the state.

(2) The doctrine to be preached must be
approved by the state.

(3) The clergy shall be servants of the state
and shall be liable to punishment not only for offences against the general law of the
land but also liable for offences involving moral turpitude and for preaching doctrines
not approved of by the state. I am personally a believer in the "
Established Church ". It is a system which gives safety
and security against wrong and pernicious doctrines preached by any body and every body as
doctrines of religion. I know there are people who are opposed to the system of an
"Established Church ". But whether the system of
an " Established Church "
is good or bad, the fact remains that there is no legal prohibition against the
propagation of the Dharma laid down by Manu. The courts do not recognize it as law. But
the law does not treat it as contrary to law. Indeed every village every day. When Pandits
are preaching it to parents and parents preach it to their children, how can Manu Smriti
fade away ? Its lessons are reinforced every day and no body
is allowed to forget that untouchability is a part of their
Dharma.

This daily propagation of the Dharma of Manu
has infected the minds of all men and women young and old. Nay, it has even infected the
minds of the judges. There is a case reported[f45] from Calcutta. A certain Dome (untouchable) by
name Nobin Dome was prosecuted for theft of a goat. He was found to be not guilty. He
filed a complaint for defamation against the complaint. The magistrate dismissed the
complaint on the ground that as he was low caste man he had no reputation. The High Court
had to intervene and direct the Magistrate that he was wrong in his view and that under
the Penal Code all persons were equal. But the question remains, how did the Magistrate
get the idea that an untouchable had no reputation ? Surely from the teaching of the Manu Smriti.

The Dharma of
Manu had never been a mere past. It is as present asthough it were enacted today. It bids fair to continue to have its sway in the
future. The only question is whether its sway will be for a time or forever.

On the 28th December 1931, Mr. Gandhi
returned to India from London where he had gone as a delegate to attend the second Session
of the Indian Round Table Conference. At the Round Table Conference, Mr. Gandhi had been
an utter, ignominious failure both as a personality and as a politician. I know that my
opinion will not be accepted by the Hindus. But the unfortunate part is that my opinion in
this respect coincides with the opinion of Mr. Gandhi's best friend. I will cite the
opinions of two. This is what Mr. Ewer, who was closely associated with Mr. Gandhi during
the Round Table Conference, wrote about the role Mr. Gandhi played at the Round Table
Conference in London.

"Gandhi in the St. James Palace has not
fulfilled the unwise expectation of those who saw him bestriding the Conference like a
colossus ........... He was out of his elements."

* * *

" His first speech, with its sentimental
appeal, its over-stressing of humility, its reiteration of single-minded concern for the
dumb suffering millions, was a failure. No one questioned its sincerity. But somehow it
rang false. It was the right thing, perhaps, but it was in the wrong place. Nor were his
later interventions on the whole more successful. A rather querulous complaint that the
British Government had not produced a plan for the new Indian Constitution shocked some of
Gandhi's colleagues, who had hardly expected to see the representative of the National
Congress appealing to British Ministers for guidance and initiative. The protest against
the pegging of the rupee to the pound was astonishingly ineffective. The contributions to
the discussions on franchise and kindred matters were of little importance. Behind the
scenes he was active enough in the Hindu-Moslem negotiations, but here, too, results were
intangible. Not for a moment did Gandhi take the lead or materially influence the course
of committee work. He sat there, sometimes speaking, sometimes silent, while the work went
on, much as it would have gone on without him." *[f46]This is what Bolton has to say about Mr. Gandhi's
achievement at the Round Table Conference.

How did Mr. Gandhi fare as a statesman and a
politician? At the close of the first session of the Round Table Conference there were
three questions which had not been settled. The question of minorities, the question of
the Federal structure and the question of the status of India in the Empire, were the
three outstanding problems, which were the subject matter of controversy. Their solution
demanded great statesmanship. Many said that these questions were not settled because the
wisdom and authority of the Congress was not represented at the Round Table Conference. At
the second session, Mr. Gandhi came and made good the deficiency. Did Mr. Gandhi settle
any of these unsettled problems? I think it is not unfair to say that Mr. Gandhi created
fresh disunity in the Conference. He began the childish game of ridiculing every Indian
delegate. He questioned their honesty, he questioned their representative character. He
taunted the liberals as arm-chair politicians and as leaders without any followers. To the
Muslims he said that he represented the Muslim masses better than they did. He claimed
that the Depressed Class delegates did not represent the Depressed Classes and that he
did. This was the refrain which he repeated ad
nauseum at the end of every speech. The non-Congress delegates deserve the thanks of
all honest people for their having tolerated this nonsense and arrogance of Mr. Gandhi and
collaborated with him to save him and to save the country from his mistake. Apart from
this discourtesy to fellow-delegates, did Mr. Gandhi stand up for the cause he came to
champion? He did not. His conduct of affairs was ignominious. Instead of standing up and
fighting he began to yield on issues on which he ought never to have ceased fire. He
yielded to the Princes and agreed that their representatives in the Federal legislature
should be nominated by them and not elected, as demanded by their subjects.He yielded to the conservatives and consented to
be content with provincial autonomy and not to insist upon central responsibility for
which many lakhs of Indians went to gaol. The only people to whom he would not yield were
the minorities  the only party to whom he could have yielded with honour to himself
and advantage to the country.

Nothing has helped so much to shatter the
prestige of Mr. Gandhi as going to the Round Table Conference. The spectacle of Mr. Gandhi
at the Round Table Conference must have been painful to many of his friends. He was not
fitted to play the role he undertook to play. No country has ever sent a delegate to take
part in the framing of the constitution who was so completely unequipped in training and
in study. Gandhi went to the Round Table Conference with a song of the saint Narsi Mehta
on his tongue. It would have been better for him and better for his country if he had
taken in his arm pit a volume on comparative constitutional law. Devoid of any knowledge
of the subject he was called upon to deal with, he was quite powerless to destroy the
proposals put forth by the British or to meet them with his alternatives. No wonder Mr.
Gandhi, taken out of the circle of his devotees and placed among politicians, was at sea.
At every turn he bungled and finding that he could not even muddle through, he gave up the
game and returned to India.

How was Mr. Gandhi received when he landed on
the Indian soil? It may sound strange to outsiders and to those who are not the devotees
of Mr. Gandhi but it is a fact that when the S. S.
Pilsner of the Lloyd Triestino entered the harbour of Bombay at 8 a.m. in the morning
of the 28th December 1931 there came to receive him an enthusiastic crowd of men, women
and children who had assembled at the Pier in tens of thousands to greet him, to welcome
him back and to have his Durshan. The following
extracts from the Times of India and the Evening News of Bombay will serve to give a vivid
idea of the grandeur of this reception.

"The Pilsner was escorted into the
harbour by Desh Sevikas (women volunteers of the Congress) in saffron coloured sarees who
went out in launches some distance from the pier.

" The Congress Committee had asked the
Bombay Flying Club to fly an Aeroplane or two over the Pilsner and drop garlands as she
came along side the pier, but the Flying Club, sanely preferring to keep out of politics,
refused to grant the Congress demand.

"The spacious Central Hall at Ballard
Pier was decorated with festoons and Congress flags and a large dais was put up at the
centre with chairs placed on all sides for representatives of various organisations, local
and upcountry, who were given passes for admission.

" Both the approaches to the reception
hall from the wharf and from the city were lined by Desh Sevikas waving national flags and
the duty of guarding the dais and of regulating and directing the assembly inside the hall
was also entrusted to the women volunteers.

"Mr. Gandhi reached the dais escorted by
the Congress leaders and received an ovation. Hardly had he stepped on the dais when he
began to be flooded with telegraph messages (presumably of welcome) which arrived one
after another.

" Standing on the dais he was garlanded
in turn by representatives of the public bodies who had assembled and whose names were
called out from a long printed list of which copies were previously distributed.

"The proceedings inside the reception
hall terminated with the garlanding.

" A procession was then formed in four,
in place of the carriage which was intended to be the conveyance for Mr. Gandhi. He was
seated in a gaily decorated motor car, with Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel to his left and Mr.
Vitthalbhai Patel to his right and Mr. K. F. Nariman, President of the Bombay Provincial
Congress Committee, on the front seat.

" Preceded by a pilot car and followed
by others containing the Congress Working Committee members, the procession passed through
the Ballard Pier Road, Hornby Road and Kalbadevi which had been decorated by the citizens
at the instance of the Congress Committee and lined on either side by cheering crowds,
five to ten deep till the party reached "Mani
Bhuvan, Gamdevi ". At no stage of this welcome did Mr. Gandhi open his lips to
acknowledge it. This man of vows was under his Sunday vow of silence which had not run out
till then and nor did he think that etiquette, good manners or respect for those who had
assembled required that he should terminate his vow earlier.

The official historian of the Congress
describes'[f47] this reception given to Mr. Gandhi in the following terms:

" There were gathered in Bombay
representatives of all parts and Provinces in India to accord a fitting welcome to the
Tribune of the people. Gandhi greeted the friends that went on board the steamer to
welcome him, patting many, thumping a few and pulling the venerable Abbas Tyabji by his
beard. There was a formal welcome in one of the Halls of Customs House and then a
procession in the streets of Bombay which kings might envy in their own country".

On reading this account one is
reminded of the Irish Sein Fein Delegates who in 1921, just 10 years before, had gone to
London at the invitation of Mr. Lloyd George for the settlement of the Irish Home Rule
question. As is well known the Irish Delegates secured from the British Cabinet a treaty
which was signed on the 8th December 1921. The Treaty was subsequently submitted for
approval to the Dail, the Parliament of the Sein Fein Party which met from 14th December
1921 to 7th January 1922. On the 7th January a division was taken. There were 64 votes for
ratifying the treaty and 57 against. And what was the reception given to the Irish
delegates who secured this treaty? Arthur Griffith  who was the head of the Irish
Delegation and Michael Collins who was his most prominent colleague, were both of them
shot by the anti-treaty Sein Feiners, the former on the 12th and the latter on the 22nd
August 1922. The reason for sending them to such cruel death was that the treaty which
they signed did not secure the inclusion of Ulster and a republic for Ireland. It is true
the treaty did not grant this. But if it is remembered that negotiations were opened on
the express understanding on the part of both sides that these two questions were outside
the scope of negotiations it will be granted that if the treaty did not include these it
was no fault of the Irish Delegates. The fury and ferocity of the anti treaty Sein Feiners
against the Irish Delegates had no moral foundation and the fate that befell Arthur
Griffith and Michael Collins can by no stretch of imagination be said to be one which they
deserved.

Be that as it may, this welcome to Mr. Gandhi
will be regarded as a very strange event. Both went to win Swaraj, Griffith and Collins
for Ireland, Gandhi for India, Griffith and Collins succeeded, almost triumphed; Gandhi
failed and returned with nothing but defeat and humiliation. Yet Collins and Griffith were
shot and Gandhi was given a reception which kings could have envied!! What a glaring and a
cruel contrast between the fate that awaited Collins and Griffith and the reception
arranged for Gandhi? Are the Indian Patriots different from the Irish Patriots? Did the
masses render this welcome out of blind devotion or were they kept in darkness of the
failure of Mr. Gandhi by a mercenary Press? This is more than I can answer.[f48]

II

While this great welcome was being accorded
to Mr. Gandhi the Untouchables of Bombay had come to the Pier to repudiate

Mr. Gandhi. Referring to this demonstration,
the newspaper reports said:

"Just outside the gate of Ballard Pier,
the scene was most exciting. On one side were drawn up Depressed Class volunteers in
uniform, weaving black flags to the accompaniment of derisive shouts against Mr. Gandhi
and laudatory cries in praise of their leader, while on the other side Congress followers
kept up a din of counter shouts."

This Untouchable demonstration included men
and women. The demonstrators numbered thousands, all waving Black Flags as a mark of
repudiation of Mr. Gandhi. They were a determined crowd and, despite intimidation by the
superior forces of the Congress assembled there to welcome Mr. Gandhi, were bent on
showing that they repudiated Mr. Gandhi. This led to a clash and blood was split. There
were forty casualties on each side.

For the first time Mr. Gandhi was made aware
that there could be black flags even against him. This must have come to him as a shock.
When he was asked about it later in the day, he said he was not angry, the Untouchables
being the flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. This is of course the Mahatmaic way of
concealing the truth. One would not mind this convenient and conventional lie if there
were behind it a realization that the crowd could not always be trusted to be loyal to its
hero. Congressmen in India sadly lack the realism of a man like Cromwell. It is related
that when Cromwell returned after a great battle, an enormous crowd came out to greet him.
A friend sought to impress upon him the immensity of the crowd. But Cromwell dismissed the
subject with the leconic remark, " Oh yes, I know many more will come to see me
hanged."!! No Congress leader feels the realism of Cromwell. Either he believes that
the day will never come when he will be hanged or he believes that the Indian crowd will
never become a thinking crowd. That part of the Indian crowd does think was shown by the
representatives of the Untouchables who assembled on the 28th to greet Mr. Gandhi with
black flags.

Why did the Untouchables repudiate Mr. Gandhi
? The answer to this question will be found in a statement issued by the organizers of
these demonstrations which was printed and circulated on that day. The following are
extracts from it. "Our Charge sheet against Gandhiji and Congress" "Enough
of patronising attitude and lip sympathy. We ask for justice and fair play."

1. In spite of the fact that the removal of
untouchability has been included in the constructive programme of the Congress,
practically nothing has so far been done by that body to achieve that object, and in our
fights against untouchability at Mahad and Nasik most of the local Congress leaders have
been our bitter opponents.

2. The attitude of Gandhiji at the Round
Table Conference in London with regard to the demands of the Depressed Classes as put
forward by their accredited and trusted leader Dr. Ambedkar, was most unreasonable,
obstinate and inexplicable.

3. Gandhiji was prepared to concede on behalf
of the Congress the special claims of the Mohamedans and the Sikhs including their demand
for separate representation on "historic grounds", but he was not willing even
to concede reserved seats in general electorates to the Depressed Classes, although he
knew, or should have known, what sort of treatment they would get, should they be thrown
upon at the mercy on caste Hindus. **** *

9. Gandhiji has said in opposing the claims
of the Depressed Classes for separate representation that he does not want the Hindu
Community to be subjected to vivisection or dissection. But the Congress is now dissecting
the community of Untouchables by playing one section against another. Gandhiji and the
Congress are not playing the fair game. Open enemies are far better than treacherous
friends.

10. Attempts are being made to show that
Gandhiji and the Congress alone represent the Depressed Classes by presenting addresses
through a handful of hirelings and dupes. Is it not our duty to demonstrate the fact by
coming out in thousands and proclaiming the truth? This is our charge sheet against
Gandhiji and the Congress.

Let those who are not blind hero worshippers
and blind partisans judge and give their verdict.

General Secretary, Depressed Classes
Institute.

Is
this charge sheet true? Mr. Gandhi is known to the world not merely as the Political
leader of India, but also as the Champion of the Untouchables. It is perhaps true that the
outside world takes more interest in Mr. Gandhi because he is the champion of the
Untouchables than because he is a political leader. For instance the Manchester Guardian
very recently devoted an editorial to the work of Mr. Gandhi for the Untouchables.

In the face of this, the charge appears to be
quite unfounded. For, has not Mr. Gandhi made the Congress pledge itself to remove
untouchability? The Congress before it came into the hands of Mr. Gandhi had refused to
allow any social problem to be placed before it for consideration. A clear cut distinction
was made between political and social question, and scrupulous attempt was made to confine
the deliberations and activities of the Congress to purely political questions. The old
Congress refused to take notice of the Untouchables. It was with great difficulty that the
Congress in 1917[f49] for the first time allowed the question of the
Untouchables to be placed before it and condescended to pass the following resolution:

"The Congress urges upon the people of
India the necessity, justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by
custom upon the Depressed Classes, the disabilities being of a most vexatious and
oppresssive character, subjecting those classes to considerable hardship and
inconvenience."[f50]

The Congress fell onto the hands of Mr.
Gandhi in 1920 and the Congress at its ordinary session held at Nagpur passed the
following resolution:

INTERCOMMUNAL UNITY

" Finally, in order that the Khilafat
and the Punjab wrongs may be redressed and Swarajya established within one year, this
Congress urges upon all public bodies, whether affiliated to the Congress or otherwise, to
devote their exclusive attention to the promotion of non-violence and non-cooperation with
the Government and, inasmuch as the movement of non-cooperation can only succeed by
complete co-operation amongst the people themselves, this Congress calls upon public
associations to advance Hindu-Muslim unity and the Hindu delegates of this Congress call
upon the leading Hindus to settle all disputes between Brahmins and Non-Brahmins, wherever
they may be existing, and to make a special effort to rid Hinduism of the reproach of
untouchability, and respectfully urges the religious heads to help the growing desire to
reform Hinduism in the matter of its treatment of the suppressed classes. "

Again did not Mr. Gandhi make the removal of
untouchability a condition precedent for achieving Swaraj ?

In the Young
India of December 29, 1920, Mr. Gandhi wrote:

"Non-cooperation against the Government
means cooperation among the governed, and if Hindus do not remove the sin of
untouchability, there will be no Swaraj in one year or one hundred years...."

Writing again on the conditions of Swaraj in
the issue of Young India for February 23, 1921,
he said:

"Swaraj is easy of attainment before
October next if certain simple conditions can be fulfilled. I ventured to mention one year
in September last because I knew that the conditions were incredibly simple and I felt
that the atmosphere in the country was responsive. The past five months experience has
confirmed me in the opinion. I am convinced that the country has never been so ready for
establishing Swaraj as now. "

"But what is necessary for us as
accurately as possible to know the conditions. One supreme indispensible condition is the
continuance of non-violence. "

"The next condition is......
establishing a Congress Agency in every village. "

"There are certain things that are
applicable to all. The potent thing is Swadeshi. Every home must have the spinning wheel
and every village can organize.... and become self supporting."

" Every man and woman can give some
moneybe it even a piceto the Tilak Swaraja Fund. And we need have no anxiety
about financing the movement......"

"We can do nothing without Hindu-Moslem
unity and without killing the snake of untouchability..... "

" Have we honest, earnest, industrious,
patriotic workers for this very simple programme ? If we have, Swaraj will be established
in India before next October."

What more did the Untouchables want ? Here is
Mr. Gandhi who had held himself out as the friend of the Untouchables. He prides himself
on being their servant. He claims and fought for being accepted as their representative.
Why should the Untouchables show such a lack of confidence in Mr. Gandhi ?

On the basis of words, the charge perhaps
appears unfounded. But does it appear equally unfounded if we have regard to deeds ? Let
me examine Mr. Gandhi's deeds.

The work which is claimed by Mr. Gandhi and
his friends to have been done by him and the Congress for the Untouchables falls into two
periods, the period which precedes the Poona Pact and the period which follows the Poona
Pact. The first period may be called the period of the Bardoli Programme. The second
period may be called the period of the Harijan Sevak Sangh.

FIRST
PERIOD

To begin with the Bardoli Programme period.
The Bardoli Programme or what is called the Constructive Programme of the Congress was the
direct outcome of the new line of action adopted by the Congress in securing the political
demands of the country. At the session of the Congress held at Nagpur in 1920 the Congress
declared :

"Whereas the people of India are now
determined to establish Swaraj; and

"Whereas all methods adopted by the
people of India prior to the last special session of the Indian National Congress have
failed to secure due recognition of their rights and liberties;

"Now this Congress while reaffirming the
resolution on nonviolent non-cooperation passed at the Special Session of the Congress at
Calcutta declares that the entire or any part or parts of the scheme of non-violent
non-cooperation, with the renunciation of voluntary association with the present
Government at one end and the refusal to pay taxes at the other, should be put in force at
a time to be determined by either the Indian National Congress or the All India Congress
Committee and in the meanwhile to prepare the Country for it ",....

At the session of the Congress held at
Ahmedabad in 1921 it was declared that:

"This Congress is further of opinion
that Civil Disobedience is the only civilized and effective substitute for an armed
rebellion.... and therefore advises all Congress Workers and others.... to organize
individual civil disobedience and mass civil disobedience"..... It is to give effect
to this policy of non-cooperation and civil disobedience and to prepare the people to take
part in them that the Working Committee of the Congress met at Bardoli in February 1922
and drew up the following programme of action.

"The Working Committee advises all
Congress organisations to be engaged in the following activities:

(1) To enlist at least one crore of members
of the Congress.

(2) To popularise the spinning wheel and to
organise the manufacture of hand-spun and handwoven khaddar.

(3) To organise national schools.

(4) To organise the Depressed Classes for a
better life, to improve their social, mental and moral condition to induce them to send
their children to national schools and to provide for them the ordinary facilities which
the other citizens enjoy.

Note:
Whilst therefore where the prejudice against the Untouchables is still strong in places,
separate schools and separate wells must be maintained out of Congress funds, every effort
should be made to draw such children to national schools and to persuade the people to
allow the Untouchables to use the common wells.

(5) To organise the temperance campaign
amongst the people addicted to the drink habit by house-to-house visits and to rely more
upon appeal to the drinker in his home than upon picketing.

(6) To organise village and town Panchayats
for the private settlement of all disputes, reliance being placed solely upon the force of
public opinion and the truthfulness of Panchayat decisions to ensure obedience to them.

(7) In order to promote and emphasize unity
among all classes and races and mutual goodwill, the establishment of which is the aim of
the movement of non-cooperation, to organise a social service department that will render
help to all, irrespective of differences, in times of illness or accident.

(8) To continue the Tilak
Memorial Swaraj Fund collections and call upon every Congressman or Congress sympathiser
to pay at least a one-hundredth part of his annual income for 1921. Every province to send
every month twenty-five per cent of its income from the Tilak Memorial Swaraj Fund to the
All-India Congress Committee.

The above resolution shall be brought before
the forthcoming session of the All-India Congress Committee for revision if necessary. "

This programme was placed before the
All-India Congress Committee at its meeting at Delhi on 20th February 1922 and was
confirmed by the same. The programme is a very extensive programme and I am not concerned
with what happened to the whole of it, how it was received and how it was worked out. I am
concerned with only one item and that which relates to the Depressed Classes.

After it was confirmed by the All-India
Congress Committee, the Working Committee met at Lucknow in June 1922 and passed the
following resolution:

"This Committee hereby appoints a
committee consisting of Swami Shraddhanandji, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu and Messrs. 1. K. Yajnik
and G. B. Deshpande to formulate a scheme embodying practical measures to be adopted for
bettering the condition of theso-called
Untouchables throughout the country and to place it for consideration before the next
meeting of this Committee, the amount to be raised for the scheme to be Rs. 2 lacs for the
present. " This resolution was placed before the All-India Congress Committee at its
meeting in Lucknow in June 1922. It accepted the resolution with the amendent that
"the amount to be raised for the scheme should be 5 lacs for the present ",
instead of 2 lacks as put forth in the resolution of the Working Committee. How did this
programme fare, what practical measures did the Committee suggest and how far were these
measures given effect to ? These questions one must ask in order to assess the work of Mr.
Gandhi and the Congress for the Untouchables.

It seems that before the resolution
appointing the Committee was adopted by the Working Committee, one of its Members Swami
Shradhanand tendered his resignation of the membership of the Committee. For one finds
that at the very sitting at which the Working Committee passed this resolution, another
resolution to the following effect was passed by the Working Committee:

"Read letter from Swami Shradhanandji,
dated 8th June 1922 for an advance for drawing up a scheme for depressed classes work.
Resolved that Mr. Gangadharrao B. Deshpande be appointed convener of the sub-committee
appointed for the purpose and he be requested to convene a meeting at an early date, and
that Swami Shradhanand's letter be referred to the sub-committee. " The Working
Committee met again in July 1922 in Bombay and passed the following Resolution:

"That the General Secretary be asked to
request Swami Shradhanand to reconsider his resignation and withdraw it and a sum of Rs.
500/- be remitted to the Convener, Shri G. B. Deshpende, for the contingent expenses of
the Depressed Classes Sub-Committee."The
year 1922 thus passed away without anything being done to further that item of the Bardoli
Programme which related to the Depressed Classes. The year 1923 came on. The Working
Committee met at Gaya in January 1923 and passed the
following resolution:

"With reference to Swami Shraddhanand's
resignation, resolved that the remaining members of the Depressed Classes Subcommittee do
form the Committee and Mr. Yajnik be the convener. "

The All-India Congress Committee met in Feb.
1923 at Bombay and seeing that nothing was done as yet, recorded the following resolution
:

"Resolved that the question of the
condition of the Untouchables be referred to the Working Committee for necessary action.
"

What did the Working Committee do then? It
met at Poona on the 17th April 1923 and resolved as follows:

"Resolved that while some improvement has been effected in the treatment of
the so-called Untouchables in response to the policy of the Congress this Committee is
conscious that much work remains yet to be done in this respect and inasmuchas this
question of untouchability concerns the Hindu community particularly, it requests the
All-India Hindu Mahasabha also to take up this matter and to make strenuous efforts to
remove this evil from amidst the Hindu community. "

Thus came to an end the Constructive
Programme undertaken by Mr. Gandhi and the Congress for the Untouchables. The Bardoli
programme for the Untouchables was in no sense a revolutionary programme. It did attempt
to abolish untouchability. It does not attempt to break up caste. There is no mention of
intermarriage or interdinning. It accepts the principle of separate wells and separate
schools for Untouchables. It was purely an ameliorative programme.And yet such a
harmless programme the Congress failed to carry through.

It must further be remembered that this was a
time when the Congress was on the war path. It was determined to fight British Imperialism
and was most anxious to draw every community towards itself and make all disaffected
towards the British. This was the time when the Congress could have been expected to show
to the Untouchables that the Congress stood for them and was prepared to serve them in the
same way that it was prepared to serve the Musalmans. There could be no more propitious
circumstance which could make the Hindus overcome their antipaty towards the Untouchables
and undertake to serve. But even such propitious circumstance did not prove sufficient to
energize Congressmen to do this small bit for the Untouchables. How hard must be the
anti-social feelings of the Hindus against the Untouchables that even the highest bliss
and the greatest stimulant, namely the prospect of winning Swaraj, were not sufficient to
dissolve that spirit. The tragedy and the shamelessness of this failure by the Congress to
carry through their programme for the Untouchables is aggravated by the way in which the
matter was disposed of.

The work of the amelioration of the
Untouchables could not have been left in worse hands. If there is any body which is quite
unfit for addressing itself to the problem of the Untouchables, it is the Hindu Mahasabha.
It is a militant Hindu organization. Its aim and object is to conserve in every way
everything that is Hindu, religious and culture. It is not a social reform association. It
is a purely political organization whose main object and aim is to combat the influence of
the Muslims in Indian politics. Just to preserve its political strength it wants to
maintain its social solidarity and its way to maintain social solidarity is not to talk
about caste or untouchability. How such a body could have been selected by the Congress
for carrying on the work of the Untouchables passes my comprehension. This shows that the
Congress wanted somehow to get rid of an inconvenient problem and wash its hands of it.
The Hindu Mahasabha, of course, did not come forth to undertake the work and the Congress
had merely passed a pious resolution recommending the work to them without making any
promise for financial provision. So the project came to an inglorious and ignominious end.
Yet there will not be wanting thousands of Congressmen who would not be ashamed to boast
that the Congress has been fighting for the cause of the Untouchables and what is worse is
that there will not be wanting hundreds of foreigners who are ready to believe it under
the false propaganda carried on by men like Charles F. Andrews, who is the friend of Mr.
Gandhi and who thinks that to popularize Gandhi in the Western World is his real mission
in life.'[f51]

It is not enough to know that the effort
failed and had to be wound up. It is necessary to inquire why Swami Shradhanand resigned
and refused to serve on the proposed Committee. There must be some good reason for it. For
the Swami was the most enlightened Arya Samajist and very conscientiously believed in the
removal of untouchability. On this point, the correspondence that passed between the Swami
and the General Secretary to the All India Congress Committee throws a flood of light on
the mentality of the Congressmen and I make no apology for reproducing below the whole of
it.

SWAMIJI'S LETTER

The General Secretary, All-India Congress
Committee, Camp Delhi.

I acknowledge, with thanks, receipt of your
letters No. 331 and 332 embodying resolutions of the working committee and of the A.I.C.C.
about untouchability. I observe with pain, that the resolution of the A.I.C.C. as at
present worded, does not include the whole of what was passed by the committee.

The facts are these. I sent the following
letter to Mr. Vithalbhai Patel, the then General Secretary on 23rd May 1922, which was
also published by the principal dailies of the country.

" My dear Mr. Patel, there was a time
(vide Young India of 25th May, 1921) when
Mahatmaji put the question of untouchability in the forefront of the Congress Programme. I
find now that the question of raising the Depressed Classes has been relegated to an
obscure corner. While Khadi claims the attention of some of our best workers and liberal
sum has been earmarked for it, for the year, while a strong sub-committee has been
appointed to look after national education and a special appeal for funds is to be made
for the same, the question of the removal of untouchability has been shelved by making
small grants to Ahmedabad, Ahmednagar and Madras. I am of opinion that with a majority of
6 crores of our brethren set against us by the beauracracy even the Khadi Scheme cannot
succeed completely. The Members of the Working Committee, perhaps, do not know that on
this side our suppressed brethren are leaving off Khadi and taking to buying cheap foreign
cloth. I want to move the following resolution in the meeting of the A.I.C.C. which comes
off on the 7th of June next at Lucknow.

"That a Sub-committee, consisting of
three members of the A.I.C.C., be appointed to give effect to the resolution about the
so-called Depressed Classes, that a sum of five Lakhs of rupees be placed at their
disposal for propaganda work and that in future all applications for grants be referred to
the said Sub-committee for disposal."

My proposal was amended by the Working
Committee and ran as follows:

"This Committeehereby appoints a committee consisting of Swami Shradhanand, Mrs. SarojiniNaidu and Messrs. G. B. Deshpande
and 1. K.Yajnik to formulate
a scheme embodying practical measures to be adopted for bettering
the condition of the so-called Untouchables throughout the country and to place it for
consideration before the next meeting of the Working Committee, the amount to be raised
for the scheme to be Rs. 2 lakhs for the present. "

Mr. Patel asked me to accept the Working
Committee's proposed resolution in toto. I refused to accept
the Working Committee's resolution and in the very first sitting of the All India Congress
Committee substituted 5 lakhs for 2 lakhs with the condition that one lakh of the same be
allotted by the A.I.C.C., out of the funds in its hands, in
cash and an appeal be made for the balance.

Mr. Rajagopalachariar,
on behalf of the Working Committee proposed that instead of fixing
the amount to be allotted out of the

Congress funds now, it should be provided
that when the Scheme was accepted by the Working Committee, that Committee should allot as
much cash as it could then spare for this purpose. I do not recollect the exact words but
the support of the amendment as given above is, to my knowledge, true.

On this an uproar arose and the query was
pressed from all sides that the cash balance in the hands of the A.I.C.C.
ought to be announced. The President called me aside and told me in confidence that the
Congress possessed very little cash balance and if pressed to disclose the true state of
affairs, it would harm the movement as outsiders and even C.I.D.
people were also present. On this I accepted the amendment of Mr. Rajgopalchariar in spite of protests from myseconder
and supporters. But my surprise was great when I found the resolution in the dailies, as
reported by the associated press, shorn of Mr. Rajagopalchariar's
amendment.

After the above resolution was passed, some
members suggested that a convener of the Sub-committee ought to be appointed, serveral members proposed me as the convener. On this Mr. VithalbhaiPatel (the then
General Secretary) got up and said, "As Swami Shradhanands name occurs first,
naturally he will be the convener and therefore there was no need of moving any fresh
resolution at all. "

Members from all parts of the country began
to give information to me about untouchability in their
provinces and pressed me to visit their parts. On this I made some promises. Then, I
thought, that without some cash for preliminary expenses no enquiries, on the spot could
be made and hence no proper scheme formulated. I also learnt that Rs. 25,000/- had been voted by
the Working Committee for "the Independent
" of Allahabad and that an application for grant of Rs. 10,000/- to the Urdu daily "Congress" of Delhi had been placed by Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Ansari before
the Working Committee. So, considering, that after all, the Congress might not be so hard
pressed for cash, I wrote a letter addressed to the President asking him to give the
Untouchability Sub-Committee an advance of Rs. 10,000/- for preliminary expenses.

After all this, the following resolution of
the Working Committee forwarded by your letter No. 331 is very interesting reading:

"Read letter from Swami Shradhanand dated 8th June 1922 for an advance for drawing up a
scheme for Depressed Class work Resolved that Mr. GangadharraoB.Deshpande be appointed
convener of the Sub-committee appointed for the purpose and he be requested to convene a
meeting at an early date, and that Swami Shradhanand's letter be referred to the
Sub-committee. "

There is another matter which is inexplicible. After my first letter had been acknowledged I
addressed the following letter from Hardwaron 3rd June 1922 :

"My dear Mr. Patel,
I shall leave Hardwar the day after tomorrow and reach Lucknow
on the morning of June 6th. You know, by now, that I feel the most for the so-called
Depressed Classes. Even in the Punjab I find that no attention worth the name has been
paid to this item of the constructive programme. In the U.P.
of course it will be an uphill work. But there is another very serious difficulty.

The Bardoli
programme, in its note under item 4, lays down that where prejudice is still strong,
separate wells and separate schools must be maintained out of the Congress funds. This
leaves a loophole for those Congress workers who are either prejudiced against the
Depressed Classes or are weak, and no work can be done in inducing people to agree to
allow the Untouchables to draw water from common wells. In the Bijnoor
District, I learn, there was no restriction and the Untouchables drew water freely from
common wells. But in some places fresh prejudice is being engendered under the aegis of
the Bardoli resolution note. In my recent visits to AmbalaCantt., Ludhiana,Batala, Lahore,
Arnritsar and Jandiala, I
found that the question of the removal of disabilities of the Untouchables is being
ignored. In and near Delhi it is the DalitodharSabha, of which I am the President, rather than the Congress
which is doing appreciable work. I think that unless item (4) of the Bardoli constructive
programme is amended in proper form, the work, which I consider to be the most important
plank in the Congress programme, will suffer.

Kindly place the following proposal before
the President and if he allows it to be placed before the next meeting of the A.I.C.C. I shall move it there"Instead of the Note
under item (4) of the Bardoli resolution, substitute the following Note : "The following demands of the Depressed Classes ought to
be complied with at once namely that (a) they are allowed to sit on the same carpet with
citizens of other classes, (b) they get the right to draw
water from common wells and (c) their children get admission
into National schools and Colleges and are allowed to mix freely with students drawn from
the so-called higher castes. I want to impress upon the members of the A.I.C.C. the great
importance of this item. I know of cases where the Depressed Classes are in open revolt
against tyranny of the so-called upper castes and unless the above demands are conceded to
them they will succumb to the machinations of the bureaucracy." After my first proposals were passed in the A.I.C.C. Meeting on June 7th
at Lucknow, I asked Mr. Patel to put my proposed amendment of Note to item (4) of Bardoli resolution before the meeting. He told me that the
Working Committee would refer it to the Sub-committee and asked me not to press it there.
I agreed. But I have not received copy of any resolution of the Working Committee referring my proposal to the Untouchability
Sub-committee.

The untouchability question is very acute in
and near Delhi and I have to grapple with it at once. But the Sub-committee cannot begin
work off-hand because the Working Committee has to take several other political situations
in the country into consideration before deciding upon any scheme of practical measures to
be adopted for uprooting untouchability on behalf of the Congress. Under these
circumstances I cannot be of any use to the Sub-committee and beg to resign from
membership.

Your letter dated June 1922 received in my
office on the 30th of that month has, by a resolution of the Working Committee passed in
Bombay on the 18th instant, been referred to me with instructions to explain facts and
request you to be good enough to reconsider your resignation from the Depressed Classes
Sub-Committee.

As you are aware, I have no personal
knowledge of the facts which happened prior to my release from the jail. But I was present
at the meeting of the Working Committee which passed the resolution dated 10th June 1922
appointing Mr. Deshpande as the Convenor of the
Sub-committee. It was not then mentioned that there was any understanding about any
particular member acting as the Convenor of the Sub-committee and the whole resolution was
passed merely to complete the necessary formalities in regard to the payment of money. It
was felt that a formal resolution of the Sub-committee was necessary before any
expenditure could be sanctioned. Mr. Deshpande was accordingly appointed as the convenor
and a sum of Rs. 500/- was voted for the expenses of these
preliminary steps. By an oversight the resolution as drafted omitted to mention the
sanction of Rs. 500/-You will thus observe that it was not
due to the unwillingness of Working Committee to sanction Rs. 10,000/- for untouchability,
but the true reason for framing the resolution in the manner it was framed was what I have
explained above. Nothing could be farther from the intention of the Working Committee than
a desire to understand the importance of the work your Sub-committee was called upon to do
or in any way to ignore the valuable advice tendered by you. On your letter being placed
before the last meeting of the Working Committee the omission of the grant of Rs. 500/- was supplied, and I was instructed to communicate
with you on the subject. It will be a great pity if the Sub-committee is deprived of the
benefit of your experience and special knowledge of the whole question of untouchability and I will ask you therefore in the public
interest to reconsider your decision and wire to my office at Allahabad withdrawing your
resignation from the Sub-Committee. I need hardly add that any resolutions arrived at by
your Sub-Committee will receive all the consideration they deserve at the hands of the
Working Committee.

As to the alteration in the Working
Committee's resolution in regard to separate wells and schools, the best course would be
for your Subcommittee to recommend the change and for the Working Committee to adopt it.

I am afraid you are under a misapprehension
as regards the grant to 'The Independent', of
Allahabad, and "The
Congress" of Delhi. In reference to the former,
all that has been done is to sanction the application of the U.
P. Provincial Committee to advance as a loan to the "nationalist journals" Ltd., Rs. 25,000 from
the funds already granted to that committee and in reference to the latter, the
application for a grant of a loan was wholly rejected.

I received your letter of 23rd July 1922
addressed from Bombay on my resignation from the Untouchability Sub-Committee. I am sorry
I am unable to reconsider it because some of the facts brought out by me in my first
letter have simply been ignored.

(1) Kindly enquire of Mr. Rajagopalchariar whether I did not first propose that at least
one lakh should be given in cash out of the funds in the hands of the A.I.C.C., whether he did not move an amendment substituting
words for the above which purported to promise that when the plan of work formulated by
the Sub-Committee was accepted by the Working Committee, that Committee would allot as
much money for the untouchability department as it could then spare and whether I did not
accept his amendment when the President called me aside and explained the exact financial
position at the time. If this is the fact then why did the amendment not appear with the
resolution?

(2) Did you enquire of Mr. VithalbhaiJ.Patel whether the members of the A.I.C.C.
did not propose me as the convenor of the Subcommittee and whether he did not then say
 "As Swami
Shradhanand's name occurs first, naturally he will be the convenor and therefore there
was no need of moving any fresh resolution at all " I
enquired about this from Dr. Ansari and he wrote back to me
on June 17th, 1922 saying that I was appointed convenor. Dr. Ansari is with you and you
can verify it from him. I hope Mr. Patel has not forgotten all about it.

(3) Then the immediate work among the
Untouchables here is very urgent and I can not delay it for any reason whatever. Kindly
have my resignation accepted in the next meeting of the Working Committee, so that I may
be free to work out my own plan about the removal of untouchability.
This was my position at the end of July last. My experience in the Amritsar and Mianwali jails and the information I gathered there, have
confirmed me in the belief that unless sexual purity (Brahmacharya)
is revived on the ancient Aryan lines and the curse of untouchability is blotted out of
the Indian society, no efforts of the Congress nor of other patriotic organisations out of
the Congress will avail in their efforts for the attainment of Swaraj. And as national
self realization and virile existence is impossible without
Swaraj, I, as a Sanyasi, should devote the rest of my life
to this sacred causethe cause of sexual purity and true national unity.

Delhi. July 23. 1922.

Shradhananda
Sanyasi.

This shows what heart Congressmen had in the
uplift work of the Untouchables.

So much for what Congressmen volunteered to
do. How much did Congressmen or Mr. Gandhi help the
Untouchables who were working independently for the uplift of their own people. This was
the period when the Untouchables themselves were on the warpath. They too were engaged in
offering civil disobedience against the Hindus for the purpose of acquiring their civic
and social rights. This was the period during which the Untouchables of Bombay Presidency
had launched their Satyagraha at Mahad
for establishing their right to take waterfrom the public tank and at Nasik for establishing their right to enter a Hindu temple. How
did Mr. Gandhi look upon this Satyagraha
movement started by the Untouchables against the caste Hindus? The attitude of Mr. Gandhi to say the least was extremely queer.

In the first place Mr. Gandhi condemned this Satyagraha by the Untouchables against
the caste Hindus. He would not support it. In this controversy the Untouchables were
perfectly logical. They argued that if Civil Disobedience was the weapon which, according
to Mr. Gandhi, the Hindus could legitimately use against the
British for securing their freedom, why were the Untouchables not justified in using the
same wapon gainst the caste Hindus for securing their
emancipation. However good this logic Mr. Gandhi would have
none of it. He tried to meet their logic by his logic. He argued that Untouchability was the sin of the Hindus. It is the Hindus who
must therefore do penance. It is they who must offer Satyagraha for the removal of
untouchability. Satyagraha was not the business of the Untouchables because they were not
sinners, far from being sinners they were sinned against. This was of course not Aristotalian logic. It is a Mahatmian
logic which is another name for casuistry. But it was apparent that this Mahatmian logic
was simply nonsense. The Untouchables replied that if that was the view of Mr. Gandhi  namely that Satyagraha is penance which is for
the sinner to offer-then why should he call upon the Hindus
to offer Satyagraha against the British. British Imperialism was the sin of the British
and therefore according to his logic the Satyagraha must be offered by the British and not
by the caste Hindus. The Untouchables had destroyed his logic. It was clear that there was
either a fallacy or insincerity in this attitude of Mr. Gandhi
to Satyagraha by the Untouchables against caste Hindus. But the Untouchables could not
dislodge Mr. Gandhi from the position of hostility which he
had adopted.

There is another incosistency
in the attitude which Mr. Gandhi showed towards the
Satyagraha by the Untouchables against Caste Hindus at Mahad
and Nasik and the attitude he showed against similar Satyagraha by the Untouchables at Vaikom. Mr. Gandhi was in favour of the Satyagraha at Vaikorn. He blessed
it and encouraged it. Why then was Mr. Gandhi opposed to the
Satyagraha at Mahad and Nasik? Was there any difference between the two ? Yes, there was. The Vaikorn Satyagraha was carried on by the
Untouchables under the auspices of the Congress. The other two were launched by the
Untouchables independently of the Congress. Had the opposition of Mr. Gandhi something to do with this difference? As Mr. Gandhi has given no answer I must leave the reader to make the
best guess.

Perhaps Mr. Gandhi
was not prepared to protect the lambs who would not accept him as their shepherd. When Mr.
Gandhi refused to give his blessings to the Satyagraha by
the Untouchables it was a foregone conclusion that no Congressmen would or could come and
help the Untouchables in their struggle against the orthodox Hindus. Indeed this attitude
of Mr. Gandhi enabled Congress Hindus to join the orthodox
Hindusthey are kith and kin and the line that divides the two is very thinand
batter the heads of the Untouchables with a clear conscience. This was not the only
mischief Mr. Gandhi did by his most illogical if not perverse attitude.
He came out openly against all non-Hindus and prohibited them from helping the
Untouchables in their Satyagraha struggle against the caste Hindus: He was not only
against Mahomedans, Christians, Parsis
and Jews rendering any help, but he went to the length of objecting to the Sikhswho
are no more than militant and protestant Hinduscoming
to help the Untouchables. Here again his argument was queer. Untouchability
is the sin of the caste Hindus. It is they who must do penance. Help to the Untouchables
being a penance and penance being the obligation of the sinner, only the sinner could
offer Satyagraha and help it. The Mahomedans, Christians, Parsis, Jews and Sikhs were not
sinners in the matter of untouchability and therefore they could not help the Satyagraha
for the removal of untouchability. Mr. Gandhi of course would not see it from the point of
view of the Untouchables. He would not see that what was sin for the caste Hindus was
slavery for the Untouchables. If the sinner was bound to do penance, the slave was
entitled to break his bonds and every person who believed in freedom, no matter what his
caste or his creed, was bound to help and free to join in the struggle. This is exactly
the point of view which Mr. Gandhi had adopted with regard to the Khilafat question. The Musalman wanted
Khilafat and the territorial integrity of Turkey. The demand for territorial integrity of
Turkey was a most impossible demand because it involved the subjugation of the Arabs by
the Turks. Still the Musalmans insisted upon it and Mr.
Gandhi brought round the whole of the Congress and the Hindus to support this impossible
and impious demand of the Musalmans. Mr. Gandhi then argued that if the Musalmans think it
their religious duty to fight for the territorial integrity
of Turkey, then it was the obligation of the Hindus to help the Muslims to fulfil their
duty.[f52]

The benefit of this logic Mr. Gandhi was not prepared to extend to the Untouchables. He was
firm. Non-Hindus may help Hindus. Hindus may help non-Hindus. But none should help the
Untouchables.1 Friends of Mr. Gandhi
were anxious to soften the rigour of his logic by pointing out that a distinction was
necessary to be made on the basis of the nature of the disabilities of the Untouchables.
They argued[f53] that certain disabilities of the Untouchables
were civic, certain were religious and that so far as the civic disabilities were
concerned even non-Hindus should be allowed to help the Untouchables to carry on the Satyagraha. Even to this Mr. Gandhi
was not prepared to listen. His interdict was applicable to all cases and there was no
distinction possible. With this interdict on outside help Mr. Gandhi
the " friend of the Untouchables "completely cut off the supplies of the Untouchables
and left them without any sinews of war.

So far I have explained how the Congress
without any qualm of conscience abandoned the idea of uplifting the Untouchables. It did
not even undertake it. Secondly I have explained how Mr. Gandhi failed
to support the Untouchables in their Satyagraha against the caste Hindus but by his queer
logic found justification for not helping them and for preventing help reaching them.
There now remains to record the third and the last event which belongs to this period.
Though last in point of time it is undoubtedly the first in point of importance. That
incident is the touchstone by which Mr. Gandhi's claim as a
friend of the Untouchables must stand or fall.

The incident relates to the demand made by
the Representatives of the Depressed Classes at the Indian Round Table Conference for
political safeguards being embodied in the new Constitution and the attitude of Mr. Gandhi to these demands. The most important of these demands
related to representation of the Depressed Classes in the Legislatures. The demand
submitted by the representatives of the Depressed Classes was in the following terms

The Depressed Classes must be given
sufficient political power to influence legislative and executive action for the purpose
of securing their welfare. In view of this they demand that provisions shall be made in
the electoral law to give them:

(1) Right to adequate representation in the
Legislatures of the

Country, Provincial and Central.

(2) Right to elect their own men as their
representatives, (a) by adult suffrage and

(b) by separate electorates for the first ten
years and thereafter by joint electorates and reserved seats, it being understood that
joint electorates shall not be forced upon the Depressed Classes against their will unless
such joint electorates are accompanied by adult suffrage."

It is this particular demand by the Depressed
Classes which raised such a storm and which became so serious an issue that the solution
of it almost shook the foundation of Indian politics and of Hindu Society.

This demand of the Depressed Classes was
founded on the recommendation of the Simon Commission. After a careful survey of the
problem of the Depressed Classes, the Simon Commission had reported to the following
effect regarding their place under the new Constitution:

" It is
clear that even with a considerable lowering of the franchize ..... there would be no hope
of the Depressed Classes getting their own representatives elected in general
constituencies without special provision being made to secure it ..... Ultimately we should hope to see them maintaining their
ground in joint electorates without special protection. ..... They will make no headway, however, in this direction as
long as they are represented solely by nomination, for nomination provides no
opportunities for training them in politics. There are, even with the present restricted
franchise, a sufficient number of Depressed Class voters to make methods of election
possible.....

Our object, therefore, is to make a beginning
which will bring the Depressed Classes within the circle of elected representation. How is
this to be done? Most of the Depressed Class associations which appeared before us
favoured separate electorates, with seats allocated on the basis of population. . ... separate electorates would no doubt be the safest method
of securing the return of an adequate number of persons who enjoy the confidence of the Depressed Classes;
but we are averse from stereotyping the difference between the Depressed Classes and the
remainder of the Hindus by such a step, which we consider would introduce a new and
serious bar to their ultimate political amalgamation with others.....

Our proposal, therefore, is that in all the
eight Provinces there should be some reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes. ... The result of our Scheme
would be that spokesmen of the Depressed Classes would be returned as elected members in
each of the Provinces. .... As to the number of seats to
be reserved, this should obviously bear some proportion to the total number of the
Depressed Classes in the province. .... We propose that. .... the proportion of the number of such reserved seats to the
total seats in all the Indian General constituencies should be three quarters of the
proportion of the Depressed Classes population to the total population of the electoral
area of the province.[f54]"..... As a
matter of fact there was nothing new in this demand of the Depressed Classes for separate
political representation for themselves by themselves and through themselves and the Simon
Commission in conceding it cannot be said to have made a new departure. This demand was
put forth in 1919.

At the time when the reforms which
subsequently became embodied in the Act of 1919 were being discussed, the authors of the
Montague CheirnsfordReport
clearly recognized the problem of the Untouchables and the
authors pledged themselves to make the best arrangement for their representation in the
Legislatures. But the Committee that was appointed under the Chairmanship of Lord Southborough to devise the franchise and the electoral system
ignored them altogether. The Government of India did not approve of this attitude and made
the following comments:

"They (Untouchables) are one-fifth of
the total population and have not been represented at all in the Morley-Minto
Councils. The Committee's report mentions the Untouchables twice, but only to explain that
in the absence of satisfactory electorates they have been provided for by nomination. It
does not discuss the position of these people, or their capacity for looking after
themselves. Nor does it explain the amount of nomination which it suggests for them. .... The
measure of representation which they propose. .... suggested
that one-fifth of the entire population of British India should be allotted seven seats
out of practically eight hundred. It is true that in all the Councils there will be,
roughly speaking, a one-sixth proportion of officials who may be expected to bear in mind
their interests: but that arrangement is not, in our
opinion, what the Report on reforms aims at. The authors stated that the Untouchables also
should learn the lesson of self-protection. It is surely fanciful to hope that this result
can be expected from including a single member of the community in an assembly where there
are sixty or seventy caste Hindus. To make good the principles of the Report we must treat
the outcastes more generously."

The Government recommended that the seats
allotted to the Untouchables by the Committee should be doubled. Accordingly in place of
seven, they were given fourteen seats.

Again in 1923, the Secretary of State
appointed a Committee which is known as the Muddiman
Committee. The principal object of the Committee was to find out how far the constitution
established by the Act of 1919 could be expanded by alterations in the Rules and without
altering the Act. The Committee made certain recommendations and pointed out the necessity
of increasing the representation of the Depressed Classes in the Legislatures. This
recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State who increased the number of seats.

Thus the right of the Depressed Classes to
special representation in the Legislature had become a principle which was not only
accepted but adopted in the Constitution. So well was this principle recognized that it
had been extended even to District Local Boards, School Boards and Municipalities.

A claim which had been given legal
recognition in 1919 and which had thereby become a right and which had become perfected by
user the representatives of the Depressed Classes felt could not be disputed by any body.
There was no reason to fear that the Congress would come forward seriously to dispute this
right of the Depressed Classes. Because although the Nehru Committee in 1929 in the Swaraj
Constitution which it was asked to frame had denied this right to the Depressed Classes,
the report of that Committee was not binding on the Congress. The Congress was bound by
nothing except its own resolution which was passed in 1920, at its Nagpur Session to allay the fears of the Sikhs, and which had
declared its policy to treat all minorities alike in the matter of representation in the
Legislature[f55]

The representatives of the Depressed Classes
were therefore justified in hoping that their demand would go through without any
difficulty whatsoever from any quarters.

At the first Round Table Conference things
went very smoothly. There was no trouble of any kind and although there was no agreement
on the minorities question, the right of the Depressed Classes to special representation
was accepted by all sections that were represented at the Round Table Conference. The
conclusions reached by the Minorities Sub-Committee were embodied in its report which was
presented to the General Conference. The following are the extracts from that report:

" There was
general agreement with the recommendation of Subcommittee No. II (Provincial Constitution)
that the representation on the Provincial Executives of important minority communities was
a matter of the greatest practical importance for the successful working of the new
constitution, and it was also agreed that, on the same grounds, Mohammadans
should be represented on the Federal Executive. On behalf of the smaller minorities a
claim was put forward for their representation, either individually or collectively, on
the Provincial and Federal Executives, or that, if this should be found impossible, in
each Cabinet there should be a Minister specially charged with the duty of protecting
minority interests.

The difficulty of working jointly responsible
Executives undersuch a scheme as this was
pointed out."

" The
discussion in the Sub-Committee has enabled the Delegates to face the difficulties
involved in the schemes put up, and though no general agreement has been reached, its
necessity has become more apparent than ever."

" It has
also been made clear that the British Government cannot, with any chance of agreement,
impose upon the communities an electoral principle which, in some feature or other, would
be met by their opposition. It was therefore plain, that, failing an agreement, separate
electorates, with all their drawbacks and difficulties, would have to be retained as the
basis of the electoral arrangements under the new constitution. From this the question of
proportions would arise. Under these circumstances, the claims of the Depressed Classes
will have to be considered adequately."

" The
Sub-Committee, therefore, recommend that the Conference should register an opinion that it
was desirable that an agreement upon the claims made to it should be reached, and that the
negotiations should be continued between the representatives concerned, with a request
that the result of their efforts should be reported to those engaged in the next stage of
these negotiations." Mr. Gandhi was not present at the
first Round Table Conference because the Congress had boycotted it. He came for the Second
Round Table Conference. What attitude did Mr. Gandhi take to
this claim ofthe Depressed Classes?

Every body expected that Mr. Gandhi would be more interested in seeing that the constitution
that was likely to emerge from these deliberations and negotiations was a constitution
which gave India Puma Swaraj i.e. complete
independence and he would not interest himself in so unimportant a subject as the
allocation of seats among the different minorities. But events completely falsified these
hopes. Mr. Gandhi completely gave up his fight against British Imperialism altogether. He
forgot that he had come with a mandate[f56] to secure a constitution which contained Puma Swaraj. He left that issue and started
fighting the minorities and what is so strange he concentrated all his fire upon the
representatives of the Untouchables for daring to put forth the claim for special
representation. Mr. Gandhi opposed tooth and nail the representatives of the Depressed
Classes. He was not even prepared to look at their claim. He was annoyed at their
impudence and the whole Conference was astonished by his opposition. They could not
understand how a man like Mr. Gandhi who posed himself as the friend of the Untouchables
could in fact be so great an enemy of their interests. His friends were completely baffled. Mr. Gandhi was prepared to recognize a similar right
claimed by the Musalmans and to the Sikhs and although he
was not prepared to recognize a similar claim by Christians, Europeans and Angio-Indians he was not going to oppose their claim. Mr. Gandhi's friends could not understand how he could deny a
similar right to the Untouchables. The Mohamedans, Sikhs,
Christians, Europeans and Anglo-indians were far better off
than the Untouchables. The former were economically far better placed. The latter were
poorest of the poor. The former were educationally advanced, the latter were educationally
most backward. The former were socially well respected, the latter were socially despised.
The former enjoyed a position of free citizens. The latter were suffering from certain
disabilities. The former were not subjected to social tyranny and social boycott but
social tyranny and social boycott were the every day lot of the latter. Having regard to
this difference in status there could never be any doubt that if there was any section of
the Indian people whose case called forth

special protection, they were the
Untouchables. When his European friends tried thus to argue with Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Gandhi used to fly
into temper and his relations with two of the best of them to my knowledge had become
quite strained on this account.

Mr. Gandhi's
anger was largely due to the fact he could give no rational answer which could convince
his opponents that his opposition to the claim of the Depressed Classes was sincere and
was founded upon the best interests of the Depressed Classes. He nowhere gave a consistent
explanation of his opposition to the Depressed Classes. Reading his speeches in London
while he was there one can see that he was using three arguments in support of his
position. Speaking as a member of the Federal Structure Committee of the Round Table
Conference Mr. Gandhi said:

"The Congress has from its very
commencement taken up the cause of the so-called "
untouchables ". There was a time when the Congress had
at every annual session as its adjunct the Social Conference, to which the late Ranade had dedicated his energies, among his many activities.
Headed by him, you will find in the programme of the Social Conference, reform in
connection with the Untouchables taking a prominent place. But in 1920, the Congress took
a large step, and brought the question of the removal of untouchability
as a plank on the political platform, and made it an important item of the political
programme. Just as the Congress considered Hindu-Muslim Unity, thereby meaning unity
amongst all classes, to be indispensable for the attainment of Swaraj, so also did the
Congress consider the removal of the curse of untouchability as an indispensable condition
for the attainment of full freedom." At the minorities Sub-Committee of the Round
Table Conference Mr. Gandhi used another argument. He said:

" I can understand the claims advanced by
other minorities, but the claims advanced on behalf of the untouchables is to me the " unkindest cut of all ".
It means the perpetual barsinister. I wouldnot sell the vital interests of the untouchables
even for the sake of winning the freedom of India. I claim myself, in my own person, to
represent the vast mass of the untouchables. Here I speak not merely on behalf of the
Congress, but I speak on my own behalf, and I claim that I would get, if there was a
referendum of the untouchables, their vote, and that I would top the poll. And I would
work from one end of India to the other to tell the untouchables that separate electorates
and separate reservation is not the way to remove this bar-sinister, which is the shame,
not of them, but of orthodox Hinduism. Let this committee and let the whole world know
that today there is a body of Hindu reformers who are pledged to remove this blot of untouchability. We do not want on our register and on our
census, untouchables classified as a separate class. Sikhs may remain as such in
perpetuity, so may Moslems, so may Europeans. Will untouchables remain untouchables in
perpetuity? I would far rather than Hinduism died than that untouchability lived.
Therefore, with all my regard for Dr. Ambedkar, and for his
desire to see the untouchables uplifted, with all my regard for his ability I must say, in
all humility, that here is a great wrong under which he has laboured and, perhaps, the
bitter experiences he has undergone have for the moment warped his judgement. It hurts me
to have to say this but I would be untrue to the cause of untouchables, which is as dear
to me as life itself, if I did not say it. I will not bargain away their rights for the
kingdom of the whole world. I am speaking with a due sense of responsibility, when I say
it is not a proper claim which is registered by Dr. Ambedkar
when he seeks to speak for the whole of untouchables in India. It will create a division
in Hinduism which I cannot possibly look forward to with any satisfaction whatsoever, I do
not mind the untouchables being converted into Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate
that but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are these two
divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of political rights of untouchables
do not know India and do not know how Indian society is today constructed. Therefore, I
want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to
resist this thing I will resist it with my life."

At a meeting at the Friends House in London
Mr. Gandhi relied upon quite a different argument. He is
reported to have said[f57]:

" I have
told you what is agitating my mind. You may take the Congress to be incapable of bartering
away the minorities rights. The untouchables, I know, as one can claim to know. It would
be equal to killing them if separate electorates were given them. They are at present in
the hands of the superior classes. They can suppress them completely and wreck vengence upon the untouchables who are at their mercy and it is
because I want to prevent that thing happening that I would fight the demand for separate
electorates for them. Whilst I am saying this, I know, I am opening out my shame to you.
But in the existing state of things how could I invite destruction for them? I would not
be guilty of that crime.[f58]

Dr. Ambedkar,
as able as he is, has unhappily lost his head over this question. I repudiate his claim to
represent them."

None of his arguments carried any conviction.
Indeed they could not. They were all spacious and they had the ring of special pleadings.

His first argument, that the Congress was
pledged to look after the untouchables, to remove their untouchabilityWas
this argument founded in truth? Mr. Gandhi has been telling
the world that the whole body of Congress has been pledged to remove untouchability and
his friends have been giving him credit for getting the Congress to do what the Congress
before him was not prepared to do. I am surprised how so false a view could have been
given such a wide currency. I have read and re-read the Resolution passed by the Congress
in 1920 at NagpurWhich is the
basis of such an assertion as is made by Mr. Gandhi and his
friends, and I am sure every one who reads that resolution will agree that the text of the
resolution gives no warrant for such an assertion. The resolution is a very clever piece
of Gandhian tactics. Mr. Gandhi
has been very anxious from the very beginning to keep the untouchables a close preserve of
the Hindus. He did not want Musalmans or Christians to be
interested in them. He wanted that the Untouchables who were attached to the British
should be detached from them and attached to the Hindus. The second object could be
achieved only if the resolution in favour of the removal of untouchability was passed from
the Congress platform. To achieve this it was necessary to confine
this duty only to the Hindus. This is what the resolution does. It is a clever move on the
part of a cunning politician. The resolution does not put the Congress as a whole behind
this resolution. Secondly, in what it does there is nothing that is obligatory in it.
There is no pledge, there is no vow. There is only moral exhortation. It only recommends
to the Hindus that removal of untouchability is their duty. Once Mr. Gandhi tried to alter the conditions for membership of the
Congress. Instead of the payment of four annas per annum being the condition of membership
Mr. Gandhi wanted to lay down two conditions: (1) removal of
untouchability and (2) spinning yarns. Congressmen were prepared to accept spinning of
yarn as a condition of membership. But they were not prepared to accept removal of
untouchability as a condition. Congressmen told Mr. Gandhi
that if he insisted upon it all Congress Committees will have to be closed down. So strong
was the opposition that Mr. Gandhi had to withdraw his
proposal. That being the case for Mr. Gandhi to have urged
before the Round Table Conference that the Congress was pledged to remove untouchability
and that the untouchables could safely be left to the mercy of the Hindus shows that even
Mr. Gandhiis
capable of economising truth to a vanishing point.

The
next argument of Mr. Gandhi that the removal of untouchability was made by the Congress a condition precedent
to Swaraj urged to prove the sincerity of the Congress could not be taken at its face
value by the obvious insincerity of the Congress and Mr. Gandhi. Untouchability was as it
had been, yet the Congress and Mr. Gandhi had come forth to demand independence. This was
enough to show that Mr. Gandhi did not believe in what he said on this point. No one in
India, at any rate no one from among the Untouchables believed in this declaration of Mr.
Gandhi and his Congress that for them removal of untouchability was a condition precedent
to Swaraj. Long before the Round Table Conference Mr. Gandhi was questioned to test his
sincerity on two occasions and the answers he gave on both left no doubt that even he did
not believe this declaration. In 1920 a correspondent asked Mr. Gandhi the following
question[f59]:

" Should not
we the Hindus wash our bloodstained hands before we ask the
English to wash theirs?" To this Mr. Gandhi gave the following reply:

"A correspondent indignantly asks me in a pathetic letter reproduced
elsewhere what I am doing for the (untouchables). I have given the letter with the
correspondent's own heading. 'Should not we the Hindus wash
our bloodstained hands before we ask the English to wash theirs ?' This is a proper question reasonably put. And if a member
of a slave nation could deliver the suppressed classes from their slavery without freeing
myself from my own, I would so do today. But it is an impossible task........." Does this show that Mr. Gandhi and the Congress
were sincere when they said that removal of untouchability was a condition precedent to
Swaraj ? That this is not the argument of a sincere man is
shown by the fact that at a later time Mr. Gandhi himself has ridiculed a correspondent
who urged upon Mr. Gandhi the desirability of keeping aside the question of the
Untouchables until the Hindus had won Swaraj.

The second occasion on which Mr. Gandhi was
questioned was when he went to Dandi in March in 1930 to
make Salt Satyagraha contrary to law. Some Untouchables went
to Dandi and questioned him. They asked him what happened to his declaration that removal
of untouchability was condition precedent to Swaraj. Mr. Gandhi's
reply as reported to me was this:

" The
Untouchables are a part of a whole. I am working for thewhole and I therefore believe that I am therefore working for the Untouchables who
are a part of the whole."

There is nothing to prove this except what
was reported to me by those who had been to see Mr. Gandhi
at Dandi. But I have no doubt that Mr. Gandhi must have said something to that effect. For what he is
reported to have said tallies with what he has said in his reply in Young India referred
to above in reply to the same correspondent. This is what Mr. Gandhi
then said:

"....though the Panchama Problem is as dear to me as life
itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive attention to non-cooperation. I feel sure that
the greater includes the less."

Are these the answers of a sincere man ? Can a sincere man believe that the untouchables are a part of
a whole.

As to his argument that special
representation to the untouchables would perpetuate the existing separation between the touchables and the untouchables was an argument which was
absolutely hollow. The way to remove untouchability is to
introduce intermarriage and interdining. The way to remove the disabilities of the
untouchables is to admit them to the use of the common well and common school. It is
difficult to understand that special representation can come in the way of intermarriage,
interdinning and the use of a common well and a common school. On the other hand the
introduction of these would be only way of disproving the necessity of special
representation. Had Mr. Gandhi and the Congress done
anything in this direction? The explanatory note added to the Bardoli
resolution shows how far Gandhi and the Congress were
prepared to go in this direction. The note says:

" Whilst
therefore where the prejudice against the untouchables is still strong in places, separate
schools and separate wells must be maintained out of Congress funds, every effort should
be made to draw such children to national schools and to persuade the people to allow the
untouchables to use the common wells." Can it lie in the mouth of persons who want to
maintain separate wells, separate schools to say that they object to separate
representation because it will cause separation ? It is only
persons who are bent on breaking down barriers who can speak against separate
representation and ask to be believed in the sincerity of their argument.

Mr. Gandhi's
last argument was a fantastic argument. If the superior classes can suppress the
untouchables and wreck vengence upon them then there is all
the greater reason why they should be given special representation so that they may
protest themselves against the tyranny of the superior classes. Mr. Gandhi had become desparate and
had losthis equanimity and balance to such
an extent that he did not know where his arguments would lead him. In using this argument
he evidently forgot that he was arguing for the perpetual enslavement of the Untouchables
by the Hindus. Mr. Gandhi's argument in short was " don't ask for freedom, because it will enrage your
master and he will illtreat you ".
If such an argument had been advanced by any one else he would have been told that he was purile and insincere.

Having failed to demolish the justice of the
claim of the Untouchables Mr. Gandhi decided to isolate the
representatives of the Depressed Classes, to see that they got no support from any other
quarter, Gandhi planned to break a possible compact between the Depressed Classes and the
Muslims. A part of the plan was to win over the Musalmans to
his side and for that purpose he offered to enter into a pact with them. A copy of this
pact which was circulated among the Muslim delegates came into my hands and I reproduce
the same here.

(This
text is reproduced below from Dr. Ambedkar's"What Congress and Gandhi
have done to the Untouchables ", pp. 72-73 which is not
typed in the MS.Ed.)

The following proposals were discussed by Mr. Gandhi and the Muslim Delegation at 10
p.m. last night. They are divided into two partsThe proposals made by the Muslims
for safeguarding their rights and the proposals made by Mr. Gandhi regarding the Congress
policy. They are given herewith as approved by Mr. Gandhi, and placed for submission to
the Muslim Delegation for their opinion.

MUSLIM PROPOSALS

GANDHIS PROPOSAL

1. In the Punjab and Bengal bare majority
of one percent of Musalmans but the question of whether it should be by means of joint
electorates and reservation of 51 per cent of the whole house should be referred to the
Musalman voters before the new
constitution comes into force and their verdict should be accepted.

1. That the Franchise should be on the basis of
adult suffrage.

2 . No
special reservations to any other community save Sikhs and Hindu Minorities. (Italics are
not in the original)

2. In other provinces where theMusalmans are in a minority the present weightage
enjoyed by them to continue, but whether the seats should be reserved to a joint
electorate, or whether they should have separate electorates should be determined by the
Musalman voters by a referendum under the new constitution, and their verdict should be
accepted.

The Congress demands:

A.Complete Independence

B.Complete control over the defence immediately.

C.Complete control over external affairs

D.Complete control over finance.

E.Investigation of public debts and other
obligations by an independent tribunal.

F.As in the case of a partnership, right of
either party to terminate it.

3. That the Musalman representatives to the
Central Legislature in both the houses should be 26percent of the total number of the
British India representatives, and 7 percent at least by convention should be Musalmans,
out of the quota that may be assigned to Indian States, that is to say, one-third of the
whole house when taken together.

4. That the residuary power should vest in the
federating Provinces of British India.

This is the agreement which Mr. Gandhi was prepared to enter with the Musalmans.
By this agreement Mr. Gandhi was prepared to give to the Musalmans the fourteen points
they had been demanding. In return Mr. Gandhi wanted the Musalmans among other things to
agree to continue the benefit of the principle of special
representation to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Some one might ask what is wrong in such an
agreement. Has not the Congress said that they will not agree to extend communal
representation to others besides these three? Such a view cannot but be treated as a
superficial view. Those who see nothing wrong in it must answer two questions. First is
this. Where was the necessity for Mr. Gandhi to get the Musalmans to agree to the Congress
policy of not extending the benefit of special representation to other minorities and the
untouchables. Mr. Gandhi could have said as the Congress had been saying to the other
minorities he was not prepared to agree to their claim. Why did he want the Musalmans to
join him in resisting their claim? And if this was not his object why did he make it a
term of the agreement which the Musalmans were to perform in return for what he agreed to
do for them.

Secondly why did Mr. Gandhi come forward to
give the Musalmans their fourteen demands at this particular juncture. These fourteen
political demands of the Musalmans rightly or wrongly were rejected by all. They were
rejected by the Hindu Maha-Sabha. They were rejected by the
Simon Commission. They were rejected by the Congress. There was no support for these 14
demands of the Musalmans from any quarter whatsoever. Why did Mr. Gandhi become ready to
grant them except with the object of buying the Musalmans so that with their help he could
more effectively resist the demand of the other minorities and the untouchables?

In my view Mr. Gandhi was not engaged in
making any bona-fide agreement. He was inducing the
Musalmans to join in a conspiracy with him to resist the claim of the smaller minorities
and the untouchables. It was not an agreement with the Musalmans. It was a plot against
the Untouchables. It was worse, it was a stab in the back.

This so-called agreement fell through because
among other reasons it was impossible for the Mahomedans to
agree to the exclusion of the Untouchables from the benefit
of special representation. How could the Muslims agree to such a project? They were
fighting for special representation for Muslims. They were not only fighting for special
representation, they were fighting for weightage in
representation.They knew that the case for
Muslims rested only on the ground that India was once ruled by the Musalmans, that they
had political importance to maintain and as Hindus are likely to discriminate against
Muslims in elections to the Legislatures, there may not be sufficient Muslims returned to
the Legislature, that the Muslims will sink politically and that to prevent such a
calamity they must be given special representation. As against this one ground in favour
of Muslims there were a hundred grounds in favour of the claim by the Untouchables. With
what face could the Musalmans oppose this demand of the
Untouchables?

The Musalmans had not lost their balance or
their sense of shame. They refused to be party to such a deala deal which they could
not publicly defend. Mr. Gandhi still kept on pestering the
Musalmans. When he could not induce them to accept the price he offered_namely the grant of fourteen pointsbecause they felt
that the world would not call it price but would call it the wages of sin, Mr. Gandhi
sought to appeal to the religious scruples of the Musalmans. The day before the 13th November[f66]1931 when the minorities
pact[f67]was presented to the Minorities Sub-Committee
of the Round Table Conference Mr. Gandhi took a copy of the Koran and went to the Ritz Hotel in Piccadilly where
the Rt.Hon.H.H.Aga
Khan was staying to meet the Muslim delegates who had assembled there. To Muslim delegates
he asked" Why are you dividing the Hindu
Community which you are doing by recognising the claim of the Untouchables for separate
representation? Does the Koran sanction such a deed? Show me where it does? If you cannot,
will you not stop perpetrating such a crime upon your sister Community?" I do not
know how the Muslim delegates answered this question of Mr. Gandhi. It must have been a
very difficult question for them to answer. Such a contingency could not have been present
to the mind of the Holy Prophet and he could not have provided for it specifically. His
followers knew that contingencies would arise for which he had given no directions and
they had therefore asked him what they should do, and the Prophet had given them this
general direction. He said to them, "in such a case see what the Kaffirs are doing and do just the opposite of it "[f68]. Whether the Muslim delegates relied upon this to
answer Mr. Gandhi is more than I can say. What I have stated is what I have heard and my
source is the most authentic source. Here again Mr. Gandhi failed because the next day in
the open Committee when Mr. Gandhi let loose his fury against the Untouchables, the Mahomedans were silent.

What can one say of this conduct of Mr.
Gandhi? Mr. Bernard Shaw has said that the British do everything on principle.

Similarly Mr. Gandhi
says he does everything on the principle of morality and good faith. Can the acts of Mr.
Gandhi be justified by tests of justice and good faith ? I
wonder. Let me state a few facts.

Before I left for London for the first Round
Table Conference I had met Mr. Gandhi in Bombay. At that meeting I had informed Mr. Gandhi
that at the Round Table Conference I would be asking for special representation for the
Untouchables. Mr. Gandhi would not consent. But he also told me that he would not oppose.
I felt that it was just a case of difference of opinion. At the second Round Table
Conference I met Mr. Gandhi twice, once alone and second time along with the
representatives of the smaller minorities. At the first meeting Mr. Gandhi was spinning
and I was talking. I spoke for an hour during the whole of which he did not utter even a
word. At the end he just said this much.

' I have now heard you. I will think over what
you have said.' At the second interview he again heard me
and the representatives of the smaller minorities and he told me that he was not prepared
to agree to the claim I was making on behalf of the Untouchables. Thereafter the
Minorities Sub-Committee was convened on 28th September 1931. At the meeting of the
Sub-Committee on 1st October 1931, the following motion was made by Mr. Gandhi:

*" Prime
Minister, after consultation with His Highness the Aga Khan
and other Muslim friends last night, we came to the conclusion that the purpose for which
we meet here would be better served if a week's adjournment was asked for. I have not had
the opportunity of consulting my other colleagues, but I have no doubt that they will also
agree in the proposal I am making."

The proposal was seconded by the Aga Khan. I
at once got up and objected to the motion and in support of my objection made the
following statement*[f69]:

*"Dr. Ambedkar: I do
not wish to create any difficulty in our making every possible attempt to arrive at some
solution of the problem with which this Committee has to deal, and if a solution can be
arrived at by the means suggested by Mahatma Gandhi, I, for one, will have no objection to that
proposal.

" But there
is just this one difficulty with which I, as representing
the Depressed Classes, am faced. I do not know what sort of committee Mahatma Gandhi
proposes to appoint to consider this question during the period of adjournment, but I
suppose that the Depressed Classes will be represented on this Committee. Mr. Gandhi : Without
doubt.

Dr. Ambedkar: Thank you. But I
do not know whether in the position in which I am today it would be of any use for me to
work on the proposed Committee. And for this reason. MahatmaGandhi told us on the first day that he spoke in the Federal
Structure Committee that as a representative of the Indian National Congress he was not
prepared to give political recognition to any community other than the Muhammadans and the Sikhs. He was not prepared to recognize the
Anglo-indians, the Depressed Classes, and the Indian
Christians. I do not think that I am doing any violence to etiquette by stating in this
Committee that when I had the pleasure of meeting Mahatma Gandhi
a week ago and discussing the question of the Depressed Classes with him, and when we,
as members of the other minorities, had the chance of talking with him yesterday, in his
office, he told us in quite plain terms that the attitude
that he had taken in the Federal Structure Committee was a firm and well considered
attitude. What I would like to say is that unless at the outset I know that the Depressed
Classes are going to be recognised as a community entitled to political recognition in the
future Constitution of India, I do not know whether it will serve any purpose for me to
join the committee that is proposed by Mahatma Gandhi to be
constituted to go into this matter. Unless, therefore, I have an assurance that this
Committee will start with the assumption that all those communities which the Minorities
Subcommittee last year recommended as fit for recognition in
the future constitution of India will be included, I do not know that I can
whole-heartedly support the proposition for adjournment, or that I can whole-heartedly
co-operate with the Committee that is going to be nominated. That is what I wish to be
clear about.

"Dr. Ambedkar : I should like to make my position further
clear. It seems that there has been a certain misunderstanding regarding what I said. It
is not that I object to adjournment; it is not that I object to serving on any Committee
that might be appointed to consider the question. What I would like to know before I enter
upon this Committee, if they give me the privilege of serving on it, is: What is the thing that this Committee is going to consider ? Is it only going to consider the question of the Muhammadans vis-a-vis the Hindus? Is it going to consider the
question of the Muhammadans vis-a-vis the Sikhs
in the Punjab? Or is it going to consider the question of the Christians, the Anglo-indians and the Depressed Classes ?

" If we
understand perfectly well before we start that this committee will not merely concern
itself with the question of the Hindus and the Muhammadans,
of the Hindus and the Sikhs, but will also take upon itself the responsibility of
considering the case of the Depressed Classes, the Anglo-indians
and the Christians, I am perfectly willing to allow this adjournment resolution to be
passed without any objection. But I do want to say this, that if I am to be left out in
the cold and if this interval is going to be utilised for the purposes of solving the
Hindu-Muslim question, I would press that the Minorities Committee should itself grapple
with the question and consider it, rather than allow the question to be dealt with by some
other informal Committee for arriving at a solution of the communal question in respect of
some minorities only." The Prime Minister as Chairman of the Committee called upon
Mr. Gandhi to explain his position and Mr. Gandhi made the following statement in reply[f70]:

" Prime
Minister and friends, I see that there is some kind of misunderstanding with reference to
the scope of the work that some of us have set before ourselves. I fear that Dr. Ambedkar, Colonel Gidney and
other friends are unnecessarily nervous about what is going to happen. Who am I to deny
political status to any single interest or class or even individual in India? As a
representative of the Congress I should be unworthy of the trust that has been reposed in
me by the Congress if I were guilty of sacrificing a single
national interest. I have undoubtedly given expression to my own views on these points. I
must confess that I hold to those views also. But there are ways and ways of guaranteeing
protection to every single interest. It will be for those of us who will be putting our
heads together to try to evolve a scheme. Nobody would be hampered
in pressing his own views on the members of this very informal conference or meeting.

"I do not think, therefore, that anybody
need be afraid as to being able to express his opinion or carrying his opinion also. Mine
will be there equal to that of every one of us; it will carry no greater weight; I have no
authority behind me to carry my opinion against the opinion of anybody. I have simply
given expression to my views in the national interest, and I shall give expression to
these views whenever they are opportune. It will be for you, it is for you to reject or
accept these opinions. Therefore please disburse your minds, to everyone of us, of the
idea that there is going to be any steam-rolling in the Conference and the informal
meetings that I have adumbrated. But if you think that this is one way of coming closer
together than by sitting stiffly at this table, you will not carry this adjournment motion
but give your whole-hearted co-operation to the proposal that I have made in connection
with these informal meetings."

Now here is a definite word given by Mr. Gandhi in open Conferencenamely that if all others agreed
to recognize the claim of the Untouchables he would not object. And after having given
this word Mr. Gandhi went about inducing the Musalmans not to recognize the claim of the Untouchables and to
bribe them to resile and take back their plighted word!! Is this good faith or is this treachery ? If this is not treachery I wonder what else could be called
treachery.

I was pilloried because I signed what is
called the Minorities Pact. I was depicted as a traitor. I have never been ashamed of my
signature to the pact. I only pity the ignorance of my critics. They forget that the
minorities could have taken the same attitude that Ulster took towards Irish Home Rule. Redmond was prepared to offer any safeguard to Ulstermen. The Ulstermen's reply
was, " Damn your safeguards we don't wish to be ruled
by you". The Hindus ought to thank the minorities that they did not take any such
attitude. All the Pact contained were Safeguards and nothing
more. Instead of thanking them Mr. Gandhi poured his vials
of wrath upon the pact and its authors. He said:

"Coming to this document', I accept the thanks that have been given to me by Sir Hubert
Carr. Had it not been for the remarks that I made when I
shouldered that burden, and had it not been for my utter failure to bring about a solution. Sir Hubert Carr rightly says he would not have found the very
admirable solution that he has been able, in common with the other minorities, to present
to this Committee for consideration and finally for the consideration and approval of His
Majesty's Government."

" I will not
deprive Sir Hubert Carr and his associates of the feeling of satisfaction that evidently
actuates them, but, in my opinion, what they have done is to sit by the carcass, and they
have performed the laudable feat of dissecting that carcass." 1 Reference is to the
Minorities Pact.

Had Mr. Gandhi
any right to be indignant ? Had he any right to feel morally
offended ? Was he entitled to throw stones at the Minorities
? Mr. Gandhi forgot that he was as much a sinner as the
Minorities and worse he was a sinner without a sense of justice. For if the Minorities
were dividing the carcass what was Mr. Gandhi himself doing? He too was busy in dividing
the carcass. The only difference between Mr. Gandhi and the Minorities was thisMr.
Gandhi wanted that the carcass should be divided among three only, Hindus, Musalmans and Sikhs. The Minorities wanted that others also
should be given a share, and which of these two can claim to have justice, on its side, Mr. Gandhi who wanted that the division of the
carcass should be to strong sturdy well-nourished wolves or the minorities who pressed
that the lean and hungry lambs should also be given a morsel ?
Surely in this controversy justice was not on the side of Mr. Gandhi.

Mr. Gandhi was the man who claimed to be the
Champion of the Untouchables better than those who belonged to the Untouchables
themselves. Claiming to be their champion he refused without any regard to morality,
justice and necessity, their claim to representation which could be their only way to
protection against social tyranny and social oppression while he was prepared to give to
the Musalmans, the Hindus and the Sikhs a goodly share of political power. When others far
better placed were claiming for power, Mr. Gandhi wanted the Untouchables to live under
his providence and that of the Congress without any means of protection knowing full well
that their lives were exposed to danger and humiliation every moment and when he came to
know that the Untouchables were seeking outside aid in support of their claim Mr. Gandhi
resorted to a terrible act of treachery. Were the Untouchables unjustified in presenting
to the world their charge sheet against Mr. Gandhi when he arrived in Bombay from the
Round Table Conference ?

chapter 6

GANDHI AND HIS FAST

The Communal question was the rock on which the Indian Round Table Conference
suffered a shipwreck. The Conference broke up as there could be no agreement between the
majority and minority communities. The minorities in India insisted that their position
under Swaraj should be safeguarded by allowing them special representation in the
Legislatures. Mr. Gandhi as representative of the Congress was not prepared to recognize
such a claim except in the case of the Muslims and the Sikhs. Even in the case of the
Muslims and Sikhs, no agreement was reached either on the question of the number of seats
or the nature of the electorates.

There was a complete deadlock. As there was no
possibility of an agreement, the hope lay in arbitration. On this everybody was agreed
except myself and it was left to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the Prime Minister to decide upon
the issue.

When at the first Round Table Conference, the
Indian delegates did not agree upon a solution of the Communal question, followers of Mr.
Gandhi said that nothing better could be expected from them. It was said that they were
unrepresentative and responsible to nobody and were deliberately creating disunity by
playing into the hands of the British whose tools and nominees they were. The world was
told to await the arrival of Mr. Gandhi, whose statesmanship it was promised would be
quite adequate to settle the dispute. It was therefore a matter of great humiliation for
the friends of Mr. Gandhi that he should have acknowledged his bankruptcy and joined in
the request to the Prime Minister to arbitrate.

But if the Conference failed the fault is
entirely of Mr. Gandhi. Amore ignorant and
more tactless representative could not have been sent to a Conference which was convened
to forge a constitution which was to reconcile the diverse interests of India. Mr. Gandhi
was thoroughly ignorant of Constitutional Law or Finance. He does not believe in
intellectual equipment. Indeed he has a supreme contempt for it and his contributions to
the solutions of the many difficulties is therefore nil. He was tactless because he
annoyed almost all the delegates by constantly telling them that they were nonentities and
he was the only man who counted and who could deliver the goods. At the first Round Table
Conference the delegates did not agree upon a solution of the communal problem. But it is
equally true that they were very near agreeing to it and when they departed they had not
given up hope of agreeing. But at the end of the second Round Table Conference, so much
bad blood was created by Mr. Gandhi that there was no chance of reconciliation left and
there was no way except arbitration.

The Prime Minister's decision on the communal
question was announced on 17th August 1932. The terms of the decision in so far as they
related to the Untouchables were as follows[f71]:

COMMUNAL
DECISION BY HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT 1932

In the statement made by the Prime Minister on
1st December last on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the close of the second session
of the Round Table Conference, which was immediately afterwards endorsed by both Houses of
Parliament, it was made plain that if the communities in India were unable to reach a
settlement acceptable to all parties on the communal questions which the Conference had
failed to solve. His Majesty's Government were determined that India's constitutional
advance should not on that account be frustrated, and that they would remove this obstacle
by divising and applying themselves a provisional scheme.

2. On the 19th March last His Majesty's
Government, having been informed that the continued failure of the communities to reach
agreement was blocking the progress of the plans for the framing of a new Constitution,
stated that they were engaged upon a careful re-examination of the difficult and
controversial question which arise. They are now satisfied that without a decision of at
least some aspects of the problems connected with the position of minorities under the new
Constitution, no further progress can be made with the framing of the Constitution.

3. His Majesty's Government have accordingly
decided that they will include provisions to give effect to the scheme set out below in
the proposals relating to the Indian Constitution to be laid in due course before
Parliament. The scope of this scheme is purposely confined to the arrangements to be made
for the representation of the British Indian communities in the Provincial Legislatures,
consideration of representation in the Legislature at the Centre being deferred for the
reason given in paragraph 20 below. The decision to limit the scope of the scheme implies
no failure to realize that the framing of the Constitution will necessitate the decision
of a number of other problems of great importance to minorities, but has been taken in the
hope that once a pronouncement has been made upon the basic questions of method and
proportions of representation the communities themselves may find it possible to arrive at
modus vivendi on other communal problems,
which have not received the examination they require.

4. His Majesty's Government wish it to be most
clearly understood that they themselves can be no parties to any negotiations which may be
initiated with a view to the revision of their decision, and will not be prepared to give
consideration to any representation aimed at securing the modification of it which is not
supported by all the parties affected. But they are most desirous to close no door to an
agreed settlement should such happily be forthcoming. If, therefore, before a new
Government of India Act has passed into law, they are satisfied that the communities who
are concerned are mutually agreed upon a practicable alternative scheme, either in respect
of any one or more of the Governors' Provinces or in respect of the whole of the British
India, they will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that that alternative should be
substituted for the provisions now outlined.

5. ****

6. ****

7. ****

8. ****

9. Members of the "depressed classes"
qualified to vote will vote in a general constituency. In view of the fact that for a
considerable period these classes would be unlikely, by this means alone, to secure any
adequate representation in the Legislature, a number of special seats will be assigned to
them as shown in the table. These seats will be filled by election from special
constituencies in which only members of the " depressed classes " electorally
qualified will be entitled to vote. Any person voting in such a special constituency will,
as stated above, be also entitled to vote in a general costituency. It is intended that
these constituencies should be formed in selected areas where the depressed classes are
most numerous, and that, except in Madras, they should not cover the whole area of the
Province.

In Bengal it seems possible that in some
general constituencies a majority of the voters will belong to the Depressed Classes.
Accordingly, pending further investigation no number has been fixed for the members to be
returned from the special Depressed Class constituencies in that Province. It is intended
to secure that the Depressed, Classes should obtain not less than 10 seats in the Bengal
Legislature.

The precise definition in each Province of
those who (if electorally qualified) will be entitled to vote in the special Depressed
Class constituencies has not yet been finally determined. It will be based as a rule on
the general principles advocated in the Franchise Committee's Report. Modification may,
however, be found necessary in some Provinces in Northern India where the application of
the general criteria of untouchability might result in a definition unsuitable in some
respects to the special conditions of the Province.

His Majesty's Government do not consider that
these special Depressed Classes constituencies will be required for more than limited
time. They intend that the Constitution shall provide that they shall come to an end after
20 years if they have not previously been abolished under the general powers of electoral
revision referred to in paragraph 6.

So far as the other minority communities were
concerned the Communal Award was accepted and the sore of disunity and discord was closed.
But so far as the Untouchables were concerned it remained open. Mr. Gandhi would not allow
it to be healed. On his return to India from the Round Table Conference Mr. Gandhi was put
behind the bars by the British Government. But though in the Yeravada gaolMr. Gandhi had not forgotten that he had to
prevent the Untouchables from getting their claim to special representation recognized by
the British Government. He feared that the British Government might grant them this right
notwithstanding the threat he had held out while at the Round Table Conference to resist
it with his own life. Consequently he took the earliest opportunity to be in communication
with the very British Government which had incarcerated him.

On the 11th March 1932 Mr. Gandhi addressed the
following letter to Sir Samuel Hoare, the then Secretary of State for India: Dear Sir
Samuel,

You will perhaps recollect that at the end of
my speech at the Round Table Conference when the minorities' claim was presented, I had
said that I should resist with my life the grant of separate electorates to the Depressed
Classes. This was not said in the heat of the moment nor by way of rhetoric. It was meant
to be a serious statement. In pursuance of that statement I had hoped on my return to
India to mobilize public opinion against separate electorate, at any rate for the
Depressed Classes. But it was not to be.

From the newspapers I am permitted to read, I
observe that any moment His Majesty's Government may declare their decision. At first I
had thought, if the decision was found to create separate electorates for the Depressed
Classes, I should take such steps as I might then consider necessary to give effect to my
vow. But I feel it would be unfair to the British Government for me to act without giving
previous notice. Naturally, they could not attach the significance I give to my statement.

Separate Electoratesharmful

I need hardly reiterate all the objections I
have to the creation of separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. I feel as if I was
one of them. Their case stands on a wholly different footing from that of others. I am not
against their representation in the legislatures. I should favour every one of their
adults, male and female, being registered as voters irrespective of education or property
qualification, even though the franchise test may be stricter for others. But I hold that
separate electorates is harmful for them and for Hinduism, whatever it may be from the
purely political standpoint. To appreciate the harm that separate electorates would do
them one has to know how they are distributed amongst the so-called Caste Hindus and how
dependent they are on the latter. So far as Hinduism is concerned, separate electorate
would simply vivisect and disrupt it.

For me the question of these classes is
predominantly moral and religious. The political aspect, important though it is, dwindles
into significance compared to the moral and religious issue.

You will have to appreciate my feelings in this matter by remebering that I
have been interested in the condition of these classes from my boyhood and have more than
once staked my all for their sake. I say this not to pride myself in any way. For, I feel
that no penance that the Hindus may do can in any way compensate for the calculated
degradation to which they have consigned the Depressed Classes for centuries.

"Shall
fast unto Death"

But I know that separate electorate is neither
a penance nor any remedy for the crushing degradation they have groaned under. I,
therefore, respectfully inform His Majesty's Government that in the event of their
decision creating separate electorate for the Depressed Classes, I must fast unto death.

I am painfully conscious of the fact that such
a step whilst I am a prisoner, must cause grave embarrassment to His Majesty's Government,
and that it will be regarded by many as highly improper on the part of one holding my
position to introduce into the political field methods which they would describe as
hysterical if not much worse. All I can urge in defence is that for me the contemplated
step is not a method, it is part of my being. It is the call of conscience which I dare
not disobey, even though it may cost whatever reputation for sanity I may possess. So far
as I can see now, my discharge from imprisonment would not make the duty of fasting any
the less imperative. I am hoping, however, all my fears are wholly unjustified and the
British Government have no intention whatever of creating separate electorate for the
Depressed Classes.

The following reply was sent to Mr. Gandhi by
the Secretary of State:

India Office, Whitehall,

April 13, 1932.

Dear Mr. Gandhi,

I write this in answer to your letter of 11th
March, and I say at once I realize fully the strength of your feeling upon the question of
separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. I can only say that we intend to give any
decision that may be necessary solely and only upon the merits of the case. As you are
aware, Lord Lothian's Committee has not yet completed its tour and it must be some weeks
before we can receive any conclusions at which it may have arrived. When we receive that
report we shall have to give most careful consideration to its recommendations, and we
shall not give a decision until we have taken into account, in addition to the view
expressed by the Committee, the views that you and those who think with you have so
forcibly expressed. I feel sure if you were in our position you would be taking exactly
the same action we intend to take. You would await the Committee's report, you would then
give it your fullest consideration, and before arriving at a final decision you would take
into account the views that have been expressed on both sides of the controversy. More
than this I cannot say. Indeed I do not imagine you would expect me to say more.

After giving this warning Mr. Gandhi slept over
the matter thinking that a repetition of his threat to fast unto death was sufficient to
paralyse the British Government and prevent them from accepting the claim of the
untouchables for special representation. When on the 17th August 1932 the terms of the
Communal Award were announced Mr. Gandhi found that his threat had failed to have any
effect. He first tried to get the terms of the Communal Award revised. Accordingly he
addressed the following letter to the Prime Minister:

Yervada Central Prison,

August 18, 1932.

Dear friend,

There can be no doubt that Sir Samuel Hoare has
showed youand the Cabinet my letter to him
of 11th March on the question of the representation of the Depressed Classes. That letter
should be treated as part of this letter and be read together with this.

Decision
to fast

I have read the British Government's decision
on the representation of Minorities and have slept over it. In pursuance of my letter to
Sir Samuel Hoare and my declaration at the meeting of the Minorities Committee of the
Round Table Conference on 13th November, 1931, at St. James' Palace, I have to resist your
decision with my life. The only way I can do so is by declaring a perpetual fast unto
death from food of any kind save water with or without salt and soda. This fast will cease
if during its progress the British Government, of its own motion or under pressure of
public opinion, revise their decision and withdraw their scheme of communalelectoratesfor
theDepressedClasses,whose representatives should
be elected by the general electorate under the common franchise no matter how wide it is.

The proposed fast will come into operation in
the ordinary course from the noon of 20th September next, unless the said decision is
meanwhile revised in the manner suggested above.

I am asking the authorities here to cable the
text of this letter to you so as to give you ample notice. But in any case, I am leaving
sufficient time for this letter to reach you in time by the slowest route.

I also ask that this letter and my letter to Sir Samuel Hoare already
referred to be published at the earliest possible moment. On my part, I have scrupulously
observed the rule of the jail and have communicated my desire or the contents of the two
letters to no one, save my two companions, Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel and Mr. Mahadev
Desai. But I want, if you make it possible, public opinion to be affected by my letters.
Hence my request for their early publication.

Not to compass Release

I regret the decision I have taken. But as a
man of religion that I hold myself to be, I have no other course left open to me. As I
have said in my letter to Sir Samuel Hoare, even if His Majesty's Government decided to
release me in order to save themselves from embarrassment, my fast will have to continue.
For, I cannot now hope to resist the decision by any other means; And I have no desire
whatsoever to compass my release by any means other than honourable.

It may be that my judgement is warped and that
I am wholly in error in regarding separate electorates for the Depressed Classes as
harmful to them or to Hinduism. If so, I am not likely to be in the right with reference
to other parts of my philosophy of life. In that case my death by fasting will be at once
a penance for my error and a lifting of a weight from off these numberless men and women
who have childlike faith in my wisdom. Whereas if my judgement is right, as I have little
doubt it is, the contemplated step is but due to the fulfilment of the scheme of life
which I have tried for more than a quarter of a century, apparently not without
considerable success.

I remain,

Your faithful friend,

M. K. Gandhi.

The Prime Minister replied as under:

September 8th, 1932

10, Downing Street,

Dear
Mr. Gandhi,

I have received your letter with much surprise and, let me add, with very
sincere regret. Moreover, I cannot help thinking that you have written it under a
misunderstanding as to what the decision of His Majesty's Government as regards the
Depressed Classes really implies. We have always understood you were irrevocably opposed
to the permanent segregation of the Depressed Classes from the Hindu community. You made
your position very clear on the Minorities Committee of the Round Table Conference and you
expressed it again in the letter you wrote to Sir Samuel Hoare on 11th March. We also knew
your view was shared by the great body of Hindu opinion, and we, therefore, took it into
most careful account when we were considering the question of representation of the
Depressed Classes.

Government Decision Explained

Whilst, in view of the numerous appeals we have
received from Depressed Class organisations and the generally admitted social disabilities
under which they labour and which you have often recognized, we felt it our duty to
safeguard what we believed to be the right of the Depressed Classes to a fair proportion
of representation in the legislatures, we were equally careful to do nothing that would
split off their community from the Hindu world. You yourself stated in your letter of
March 11, that you were not against their representation in the legislatures.

Under the Government scheme the Depressed
Classes will remain part of the Hindu community and will vote with the Hindu electorate on
an equal footing, but for the first twenty years, while still remaining electorally part
of the Hindu community, they will receive through a limited number of special
constituencies, means of safeguarding their rights and interests that, we are convinced,
is necessary under present conditions.

Where these constituencies are created, members
of the Depressed Classes will not be deprived of their votes in the general Hindu
constituencies, but will have two votes in order that their membership of the Hindu
community should remain unimpaired.

We have deliberately decided against the
creation of what you describe as a communal electorate for the Depressed Classes and
included all Depressed Class voters in the general or Hindu constituencies so that the
higher caste candidates should have to solicit their votes or Depressed Class candidates
should have to solicit the votes of the higher castes at elections. Thus in every way was
the unity of Hindu society preserved.

Safeguard
Temporary

We felt, however, that during the early period of responsible government when
power in the Provinces would pass to whoever possessed a majority in the legislatures, it
was essential that the Depressed Classes, whom you have yourself described in your letter
to Sir Samuel Hoare as having consigned by Caste Hindus to calculated degradation for
centuries, should return a certain number of members of their own choosing to legislatures
of seven of the nine provinces to voice their grievances and their ideals and prevent
decisions going against them without the legislature and the Government listening to their
case  in a word, to place them in a position to speak for themselves which every
fair-minded person must agree to be necessary. We did not consider the method of electing
special representatives by reservation of seats in the existing conditions, under any
system of franchise which is practicable, members who could genuinely represent them and
be responsible for them, because in practically all cases, such members would be elected
by a majority consisting of higher caste Hindus.

The special advantage initially given under our
scheme to the Depressed Classes by means of a limited number of special constituencies in
addition to their normal electoral rights in the general Hindu constituencies is wholly
different in conception and effect from the method of representation adopted for a
minority such as the Moslems by means of separate communal electorates. For example, a
Moslem cannot vote or be a candidate in a general constituency, whereas any electorally
qualified member of the Depressed Classes can vote in and stand for the general
constituency.

Reservation Minimum

The number of territorial seats allotted to
Moslems is naturally conditioned by the fact that it is impossible for them to gain any
further territorial seats and in most provinces they enjoy weightage in excess of their
population ratio; the number of special seats to be filled from special Depressed Classes
constituencies will be seen to be small and has been fixed not to provide a quota
numerically appropriate for the total representation of the whole of the Depressed Class
population, but solely to secure a minimum number of spokesmen for the Depressed Classes
in the legislature who are chosen exclusively by the Depressed Classes. The proportion of
their special seats is everywhere much below the population percentage of the Depressed
Classes. As I understand your attitude, you propose to adopt the extreme course of
starving yourself to death not in order to secure that the Depressed Classes should have
joint electorates with other Hindus, because that it already provided, nor to maintain the
unity of Hindus, which is also provided, but solely to prevent the Depressed Classes, who
admittedly suffer from terrible disabilities today, from being able to secure a limited
number of representatives of their own choosing to speak on their behalf in the
legislatures which will have a dominating influence over their future.

In the light of these very fair and cautious proposals, I am quite unable to
understand the reason of the decision you have taken and can only think you have made it
under a misapprehension of the actual facts.

Government Decision Stands

In response to a very general request from Indians after they had failed to
produce a settlement themselves the Government much against its will, undertook to give a
decision on the minorities question. They have now given it, and they cannot be expected
to alter it except on the conditions they have stated. I am afraid, therefore, that my
answer to you must be that the Government's decision stands and that only agreement of the
communities themselves can substitute other electoral arrangements for those that
Government have devised in a sincere endeavour to weigh the conflicting claims on their
just merits.

You ask that this correspondence, including
your letter to Sir Samuel Hoare of March 11th, should be published. As it would seem to me
unfair if your present internment were to deprive you of the opportunity of explaining to
the public the reason why you intend to fast, I readily accede to the request if on
reconsideration you repeat it. Let me, however, once again urge you to consider the actual
details of Government's decision and ask yourself seriously the question whether it really
justifies you in taking the action you contemplate.

I am,

Yours very sincerely,

J. Ramsay MacDonald.

Finding that the Prime Minister would not yield
he sent him the following letter informing him that he was determined to carry out his
threat of fast unto death:

Yeravada Central Prison,

September 9th, 1932.

Dear friend,

I have to thank you for your frank and full letter telegraphed and received
this day. I am sorry, however, that you put upon the contemplated step an interpretation
that never crossed my mind. I have claimed to speak on behalf of the very class, to
sacrifice whose interests you impute to me a desire to fast myself to death. I had hoped
that the extreme step itself would effectively prevent any such selfish interpretation
without arguing, I affirm that for me this matter is one of pure religion. The mere fact
of the Depressed Classes having double votes does not protect them or Hindu society in
general from being disrupted. In the establishment of separate electorate at all for the
Depressed Classes I sense the injection of poison that is calculated to destroy Hinduism
and do no good whatever to the Depressed Classes. You will please permit me to say that no
matter how sympathetic you may be, you cannot come to a correct decision on a matter of
such vital and religious importance to the parties concerned.

I should not be against even
over-representation of the Depressed Classes. What I am against is their statutory
separation even in a limited form, from the Hindu fold, so long as they choose to belong
to it. Do you realize that if your decision stands and the constitution comes into being,
you arrest the marvellous growth of the work of Hindu reformers who have dedicated
themselves to the uplift of their suppressed brethren in every walk of life ?

Decision
Unchanged

I have, therefore, been compelled reluctantly to adhere to the decision
conveyed to you.

As your letter may give rise to a
misunderstanding, I wish to state that the fact of my having isolated for special
treatment the Depressed Classes question from other parts of your decision does not in any
way mean that I approve of or am reconciled to other parts of the decision. In my opinion,
many other parts are open to very grave objection. Only I do not consider them to be any
warrant for calling from me such self immolation as my conscience has prompted me to, in
the matter of the Depressed Classes.

I remain, Your faithful friend,

M. K.
Gandhi.

Accordingly on the 20th September 1932 Mr.
Gandhi commenced his "fast unto death" as a protest against the grant of
separate electorates to the Untouchables.

The story of this fast has been told by Mr.
Pyarelal in a volume which bears the picturesque and flamboyant title of "The Epic
Fast ". In the pages of this lours
Boswelliana the curious will find all he wants to know about the happenings in India
during these mad days and I need say nothing about it here. Suffice it to say that
although Mr. Gandhi went on fast unto death he did not want to die. He very much wanted to
live.

The fast therefore created a problem and that
problem was how to save Mr. Gandhi's life. The only way to save his life was to alter the
Communal Award so as not to hurt Mr. Gandhi's conscience. The Prime Minister had made it
quite clear that the British Cabinet would not withdraw it or alter it of its own but that
they were ready to substitute for it a formula that may be agreed upon by the Caste Hindus
and the Untouchables. As I had the privilege of representing the Untouchables at the Round
Table Conference it was assumed that the assent of the Untouchables would not be valid
unless I was a party to it. At the moment my position as the representative of the
Untouchables of India was not only not questioned but was accepted as a fact. All eyes
naturally turned to me as the man or rather as the villain of the piece. Mr. Gandhi's life
as he himself said was in my hands.

It is no exaggeration to say that no man was
placed in a greater and graver dilemma than I was then. It was a baffling situation. I had
to make a choice between two different alternatives. There was before me the duty which I
owed as a part of common humanity to save Gandhi from sure death. There was before me the
problem of saving for the Untouchables the political rights which the Prime Minister had
given them. I responded to the call of humanity and saved the life of Mr. Gandhi by
agreeing to alter the Communal Award in a manner satisfactory to Mr. Gandhi. This
agreement is known as the Poona Pact. The terms of the Poona Pact were as under:

1. There shall be seats reserved for the
Depressed Classes out of general electorates. Seats in Provincial Legislatures shall be as
follows:

Madras

30

Bombay with Sind

15

Punjab

8

Bihar and Orissa

18

Central Provinces

20

Assam

7

Bengal

30

United Provinces

20

Total

148

This number of 148 seats was raised to 151 in making adjustments on seats for
Bihar and Orissa.

These figures are based on the total strength of the Provincial Councils
announced in the Prime Minister's decision.

2. Election to these seats shall be by joint
electorates subject, however, to the following procedure:

All members of the Depressed Classes registered
in the general electoral roll of a constituency, will form an electoral college which will
elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes, for each of such
reserved seats by the method of single vote and four persons getting the highest number of
votes in such primary election, shall be the candidates for election by the general
electorates.

3. Representation of the Depressed Classes in
the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and
reserved seats by the method of primary election in the manner provided for in clause 2
above for their representation in Provincial Legislatures.

4. In the Central Legislature 18 per cent of
the seats allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legislature
shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes.

5. The system of primary election to panel of
candidates for election to the Central and Provincial Legislatures, as herein before
mentioned, shall come to an end after the first ten years unless terminated sooner by
mutual agreement under the provision of Clause 6 below.

6. The system of representation of the
Depressed Classes by reserved seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided
for in clauses I and 4 shall continue until determined by mutual agreement between the
communities concerned in this settlement.

7. The franchise for the Central and Provincial
Legislature for the Depressed Classes shall be as indicated in the Lothian Committee
Report.

8. There shall be no disabilities attaching to
anyone on the ground of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any
elections to local bodies or appointment to public service.

Every endeavour shall be made to secure a fair
representation of the Depressed Classes in these respects subject to such educational
qualifications as may be laid down for appointment to public services.

9. In every province out of the educational
grant an adequate sum shall be earmarked for providing educational facilities to members
of the Depressed Classes.

The terms of the Pact were accepted by Mr.
Gandhi and given effect to by Government by embodying them in the Government of India Act.

This fast unto death was a great gamble on the
part of Mr. Gandhi. He perhaps felt that the mere threat to fast unto death would make me
and other Depressed Classes who were with me just shiver and yield. But he soon found that
he was mistaken and that the Untouchables were equally determined to fight to the last for
their rights. No one except his own followers was convinced that Mr. Gandhi's fast had any
moral basis and if Gandhi got a second lease of life, he owes it entirely to the
generosity and goodwill shown towards him by the Untouchables.

Question however is what advantage the
Untouchables have got by entering into the Poona Pact. To understand this one must examine
the results of the elections to the Legislatures. The Government of India Act came into
operation on 1st April 1937. In February 1937 the elections to the new legislatures as
defined in the Act took place. So far as the Untouchables are concerned the elections
which took place in February 1937 were elections in accordance with the Poona Pact. The
following is the analysis of the results of that election to the seats reserved for the
Untouchables in the different Provincial Assemblies.

This analysis reveals certain facts which make
one ask whether the Untouchables have got anything of any value by entering into the Poona
Pact and saving the life of Mr. Gandhi and whether the Poona Pact has not made the
Untouchables the Bondsmen of the Caste Hindus.

This analysis shows that a large majority of
them have been elected as Congressmen. It is my firm conviction that for the Untouchables
to merge in the Congress or for the matter of that in any large political party cannot but
be fatal for them.

The Untouchables need a movement if they are to
remain conscious of their wrongs and if the spirit of revolt is kept alive amongst them.
They need a movement because the Caste Hindus have to be told that what is tragedy of the
Untouchables is their crime. The Congress may not be a red-blooded Hindu body so far as
the Musalmans are concerned. But it is certainly a full-blooded and blue-blooded Hindu
body inasmuch as it consists of Caste Hindus. A movement of the Untouchables must mean an
open war upon the Caste Hindus. A movement of the Untouchables within the Congress is
quite impossible. It must mean an inter necine
within the party. The Congress for its own safety cannot allow it.

The Congress has strictly forbidden the
Untouchables who have joined the Congress to carry on any independent movement of the
Untouchables not approved of by the High Command. The result is that in those Provinces
where the Untouchables have joined the Congress the movement of the Untouchables as such
is dead.

The Untouchables must retain their right to
freedom of speech and freedom of action on the floor of the Legislature if they are to
ventilate their grievances and obtain redress of their wrongs by political action. But
this freedom of speech and action has been lost by the representatives of the Untouchables
who have joined the Congress. They cannot vote as they like, they cannot speak what they
think. They cannot ask a question, they cannot move a resolution and they cannot bring in
a Bill. They are completely under the control of the Congress Party Executive. They have
only such freedom as the Congress Executive may choose to allow them. The result is that
though the tale of woes of the Untouchables is ever-increasing, the untouchable members of
the Legislature are unable even to ask a question about them. So pitiable has their
condition become that the Congress Party sometimes requires them to vote against a measure
that may in the opinion of the Untouchable members of the Legislature be beneficial to the
Untouchables. A recent instance of this occurred in Madras. Rao Bahadur Raja a member of
the Madras Legislature brought ina Bill to
secure the entry of the Untouchables into Hindu Temples in the Madras Presidency. The
Congress Government had promised to support it at first. Subsequently the Congress
Government in Madras changed its opinion and opposed the measure. It was a dilemma for the
Untouchable members of the Madras Legislature. But they had no choice. The whip was
applied and they in a body voted against the measure. The representatives of the
Untouchables were supposed to be the watch-dogs of the Untouchables. But by reason of
having joined the Congress they are muzzled dogs. Far from biting they are not even able
to bark. This loss of freedom of speech and action by these Untouchable members is
entirely due to their having joined the Congress and subjected themselves to the
discipline of the Congress.

The third disadvantage arising from the
Untouchables joining the Congress lies in their being unable to secure any real benefit to
the Untouchables. This is due to two reasons. First of all the Congress is not a radical
party. The Congress has the reputation of being a revolutionary organization. Its idea of
complete independence, the movement of civil disobedience and non-payment of land revenue
which the Congress once launched have undoubtedly given that reputation. But many people
forget that a revolutionary party is not necessarily a radical party. Whether a
revolutionary party is also a radical party must depend upon the social and emotional
realities which bring on or induce the revolutionary activity. The Barons of England who
under Simon de Mandfort rose against King John in 1215 and compelled him to sign the Magna Charta must be classed as revolutionaries
along with the Peasants of England who in 1381 rose in rebellion under Wat Tyler against
their masters and who were all hanged for their rebellious acts. But who can say that the
Barons because they were revolutionaries were also radical ? The Barons rebelled because
they wanted the rights of their class against the King and the peasants established. The
Barons revolt was fed by the social emotion of those who were frustrated of power. The
emotions behind the peasants revolt were those who were oppressed and who were hungering
for food and freedom and that is why the peasants were both revolutionary as well as
radical. The revolt of the Congress is more like the revolt of the Peasants. The Congress
under Gandhi is as radical as the Barons were under Simon de Mandfort. Just as the Barons
revolt was fed by the social emotions of those who were frustrated of power and not by the
emotions of those who were toiling and hungering so was the Congress revolt against the
British. It is true that the Congress gathered a large following from the masses but that
was by appealing to their anti-British feeling which is natural to all Indians. It is also
true that emotions of these were those who were frustrated of food and freedom. But their
emotions were in conflict of those socially advanced and the propertied classes. And the
latter had all along been the governing class in the Congress. The masses have been camp
followers. It is their emotions which has all along determined the character of the
Congress. Their emotions are of those who are frustrated of power. That is why the
Congress has been only revolutionary body and has not been a radical party. The truth of
this can be seen by any one who cares to examine the record of the Congress Governments.
Their achievement since they have taken over are just a miscellaneous collection of
trifling trinkets. They have shot down the workers more readily than the British and have
released criminals sentenced by the High Courts on no other ground than that they have the
authority to do it. It is a surprize to meit is not me that the Congress has
so soon shown that it is just a counter-part of the Tories in England. The governing class
in the Congress has lost all its fervour for revolution, for driving the British out.
Having now got a field to exploit the masses they want to stick on the power and authority
to do the job thoroughly and do not wish to be disturbed by any thought of
anti-imperialism at all.

Not being radical party the Congress cannot be
trusted to undertake a radical programme of social and economic reconstruction without
which the Untouchables can never succeed in improving their lot. For the Untouchables to
join such a party is a futile and senseless thing. The Congress will not do anything for
them but will only use them as they have done.

The Congress might do something for the
Untouchables if it was compelled to do by force of circumstances. There is only one
circumstance in which the Congress would feel such a compulsion that is when the
Congress finds itself dependent upon the representatives of the Untouchables for its
majority in the Legislature. Then the Untouchables would be in a position to dictate their
terms to the Congress and the Congress would be bound to accept them. In such a
contingency it would be worth the while of the Untouchables to join the Congress in a
coalition. It would be real bargain. But today the Congress has everywhere such large
majorities that in the legislatures it is its own master. It is not dependent on any
outside support. The Untouchables who are in it are at the end of the tail and the tail so
lengthened that it cannot wag. This is the second reason why joining the Congress can be
of no benefit to the Untouchables.

Such are the disadvantages that have arisen
from the Untouchables having joined the Congress. They are not merely disadvantages. I
call them dire consequences. All social movement has become dead. All political power has
become migratory. It is understatement to say that under the new Constitution the
Untouchables are marking time. The fact is that they have been put in chains.

But the question will undoubtedly be asked and
it is thisIf such are the consequences of joining the Congress why did these
Untouchables join it? Why did they not fight their elections independently and in
opposition to the Congress? Some of the Untouchables who stood on the Congress ticket were
just careerists, men on the make who wanted to climb into the Legislature so as to be
within call when the places of office or profit come for distribution. They did not care
by whose ladder they climbed. The Congress being the biggest party and its pass the surest
way of being admitted into the Legislature these careerists felt that to join the Congress
was the easiest way of electoral success. They did not want to take any chance. This
however explains their object. It does not explain the cause which forced them to join the
Congress. I am sure even these careerists would not have joined the Congress if it was
possible for them to have got themselves elected independently of the Congress. They
joined the Congress only because they found that that course was impossible. Why were they
compelled to join the Congress? The answer is that it was due to the system of joint
electorates which caused the mischief which was introduced by the Poona Pact.

A joint electorate for a small minority and a
vast majority is bound to result in a disaster to the minority. A candidate put up by the
minority cannot be successful even if the whole of the minority were solidly behind him.
The fact that a seat is reserved for a minority merely gives a security that the minority
candidate will be declared elected. But it cannot guarantee that the minority candidate
declared elected will be a person of its choice if the election is to be by a joint
electorate. Even if a seat is reserved for a minority, a majority can always pick up a
person belonging to the minority and put him up as a candidate for the reserved seat as
against a candidate put up by the minority and get him elected by helping its nominee with
the superfluous voting strength which is at its command. The result is that the
representative of the minority elected to the reserved seat instead of being a champion of
the minority is really the slave of the majority.

In the system of electorates now formed for
election to the Legislature, the Untouchable voters as against the caste Hindu voters are
placed in a hopeless minority. A few instances will show how great is the discrepancy in
the relative voting strength of the Untouchables and the caste Hindus in the different
constituencies.

The power to do mischief in elections which a
joint electorate gives to a majority is increased immensely if the electoral system is
based on the principle of a single member constituency.

In a system of joint electorates with reserved
seats for a minority a constituency must always be a plural member constituency i.e. there
must be one seat for the minority and at least one seat for the majority. In other words
it must be what is called a plural member constituency. This plural member constituency
must be small one i.e. the majority community may have just two seats as against the one
assigned to the minority. It may be a large one i.e. the majority may have a larger number
of seats assigned to it. This is an important consideration because the smaller the number
of seats the greater the power of mischief which the majority gets. This will be clear if
it is borne in mind that when a majority has fewer seats it can release a large portion of
its voting strength to get its own nominee from the minority elected to the reserved seats
and defeat the nominee of the minority. On the other hand if the majority is assigned a
larger number of seats, there a competition among the candidates is greater, the voters of
the majority community are for the most part (busy) [f73] in fighting out the election to the seats assigned to the
majority and very few at all can be released to help the nominee of the majority for the
minority seat. In a joint electorate the safety of the minority lies in the majority
having a larger number of seats to contest. Otherwise it is sure to be overwhelmed by the
majority.

In the electoral system now framed for the
caste Hindus the principle that is adopted is that of the single member constituency. It
is true that on the face of it the constituency taken as a whole appear to be a plural
member constituency. But, in fact, the constituency so far as the caste Hindus are
concerned are single member constituencies. The consequence of this single member
constituency system for Caste Hindus is that the Hindus are able to release an enormous
lot of their superfluous votes and flood the election for the seats reserved for the
Untouchables and keep their nominee for the reserved seat afloat.

The Hindus were anxious to forge further means
for nullifying the benefit of the Poona Pact. The Poona Pact having been concluded in a
hurry, it left many things undefined. Of the things that were left undefined and about
which there arose subsequently a keen controversy were the following: (1) Does the 'panel
of four' to be elected at the primary election imply four as a maximum or a minimum ? (2)
What was to be the method of voting in the final joint electorate with the Hindus? The
Hammond Committee which had to decide upon these issues found that there were two
diametrically opposite views in regard to these two questions, one view held by the Caste
Hindus and the other held by the Untouchables. It was contended on behalf of the Caste
Hindus that the panel of four was intended to be a minimum. If four candidates are not
forthcoming there could be no primary election and therefore there can be no election for
the reserved seat, which they said must remain vacant and the Untouchables should go
without representation. The Untouchables contended that four was the maximum. Four in the
Poona Pact meant " not more than four ". It did not mean " not less than
four". On the question of voting the caste Hindus contended that the compulsory
distributive vote was the most appropriate. The Untouchables on the other hand insisted
that the cumulative system of voting was the proper system to be introduced.

The Hammond Committee accepted the view
propounded by the Untouchables and rejected those of the Caste Hindus. All the same it is
interesting to know why the caste Hindus put forth their contentions.

The reason why the Hindus wanted four in the
panel and not less was quite obvious. The object of the Hindus is to get elected in the
final election such a representative of the Untouchables as would be most ready and
willing to compromise with Hindus and Hinduism. To get him elected in the final election
he must first come in the Panel. A most compromising Untouchable can come in the Panel
only when the panel is a large panel.

If there is only one candidate in the Panel
then he would be the stautichest representative of the Untouchable and worst from the
standpoint of the Hindus. If there are two, the second will be less staunch than the first
and therefore good from the standpoint of the Hindus. If there are three, the third will
be less staunch than the second and therefore better from the standpoint of the Hindus. If
there be four, the fourth will be less staunch than the third and therefore best from the
point of view of the Hindus. The Panel of four gives the Hindus the best chance of getting
into the Panel such representative of the Untouchables as is most compromising in his
attitude towards Hindus and Hinduism and that is why they insisted that the Panel should
be at least of four.

The object of insisting upon the system of
compulsory distributive vote was just supplementary to the idea of having the Panel of not
less than four. Under the cumulative vote the elector has as many votes as there are
seats, but may plump them all for one candidate or distribute them over two or more
candidates as he may desire. Under the distributive system of voting the elector has also
as many votes as there are seats, but he can give only one vote to any one candidate.

Although the two look different yet in effect
there may be no difference because even under the cumulative vote a voter is not prevented
from distributing his votes. He is free to give one vote to one candidate. But the Hindus
did not want to take any chance. Their main object was to flood the election to the seat
reserved for the Untouchables in the joint electorate by using the surplus votes of the
caste Hindus in favour of the Untouchable candidate who happens to be their nominee. The
object was to outnumber the Untouchable voters and prevent them from electing their own
nominee. This cannot be done unless the surplus votes of the caste Hindu voters were
divested from the caste Hindu candidate towards the Untouchable candidates. There is a
greater chance of the diversion of these surplus votes under the distributive system than
there is under the cumulative system. Under the former the caste Hindu voter can give only
one vote to the caste Hindu candidate. The other vote not being of use to the caste Hindu
candidate is usable only for an Untouchable candidate. With the distributive system there
was more chance of flooding the election to the seat reserved for the Untouchables and
this is why they preferred it to the system of cumulative vote. But they want to take a
chance. Even the distributive system from their point of view was not foolproof. Under the
distributive system there was no compulsion upon the voter to use all his votes. He may
use one vote for the caste Hindu candidate and not use the rest of his votes. If this
happens the purpose of getting in their untouchable nominee would be defeated. Not to
leave things to chance the Hindus wanted that the distributive system of voting should be
made compulsory so that a caste Hindu voter whether he wants it or not can have no option
but to vote for the untouchable candidate who may be the nominee of the Hindus.

The two proposals were thus a part of a deep
conspiracy on the part of the Hindus. They were rejected by the Hammond Committee. But
there are enough elements of mischief in the Poona Pact itself that the rejection of these
two proposals has in no way weakened the power of the Hindus to render nugatory the right
of special representation granted to the Untouchables.

Notwithstanding the political disaster which
has overtaken the Untouchables and which is the result of the Poona Pact, there are not
wanting friends of Mr. Gandhi who hold out the Poona Pact as a great boon to the
Untouchables.

Firstly it is alleged that the Poona Pact gave
the Untouchables larger number of seats than was given to them by the Communal Award. It
is true that the Poona Pact gave the Untouchables 151 seats while the Award had only given
them 78. But to conclude from this that the Poona Pact gave them more than what was given
by the Award is to ignore what the Award had in fact given to the Untouchables.

The Communal Award gave the Untouchables two
benefits: (i) a fixed quota of seats to be
elected by separate electorates for Untouchables and to be filled by persons belonging to
the Untouchables, (ii) Double vote, one to be used through separate
electorates and the other to be used in the general electorates.

Now if the Poona Pact increased the fixed quota
of seats it also took away the right to the double vote. This increase in seats can never
be deemed to be a compensation for the loss of the double vote. The second vote given by
the Communal Award was a priceless privilege. Its value as a political weapon was beyond
reckoning. The voting strength of the Untouchables in each constituency is one to ten.
With this voting strength free to be used in the election of caste Hindu candidates, the
Untouchables would have been in a position to determine, if not to dictate, the issue of
the General Election. No Caste Hindu candidate could have dared to neglect the
Untouchables in his constituency or be hostile to their interest if he was made dependent
upon the votes of the Untouchables. Today the Untouchables have a few more seats than were
given to them by the Communal Award. But this is all that they have. Every other member is
indifferent if not hostile. If the Communal Award with its system of double voting had
remained, the Untouchables would have had a few seats less but every other member would
have been a member for the Untouchables. The increase in the number of seats for the
Untouchables is no increase at all.

Admitting for the sake of argument that the
Poona Pact did give to the Untouchables a few more seats, the question still remains of
what use are these additional seats. Ordinarily a right to vote is deemed to be sufficient
as a means of political protection. But it was felt that in the case of the Untouchables
mere right to vote would not be enough. It was feared that a member elected on the votes
of the Untouchables, if he is himself not an Untouchable, might play false and might take
no interest in them. It was held that the grievances of the Untouchables must be
ventilated in the Legislature and that the surest way of ensuring it would be to provide
that a certain number of seats shall be reserved for them so that the Untouchables shall
be represented by Untouchables in the Legislature. It is now evident that this hope has
not been fulfilled. The Communal Award no doubt gave fewer seats. But they would have been
all of them freemen. The Poona Pact gave more but they are all filled by bondsmen. If to
have a platoon of bondsmen is an advantage then the Poona Pact may be said to be
advantage.

The second argument in favour of the Poona Pact
is that in abolishing separate electorates it saved the Untouchables from being eternally
branded as Untouchables. In one of his speeches delivered in London Mr. Gandhi said:

"Muslims and Sikhs are all well organized.
The 'untouchables' are not. There is very little political consciousness among them and
they are so horribly treated that I want to save them against themselves. If they had
separate electorates their lives would be miserable in villages which are the strongholds
of Hindu orthodoxy. It is the superior class of Hindus who have to do penance for having
neglected the ' untouchables ' for ages. That penance can be done by active social reform
and by making the lot of the ' untouchables ' more bearable by acts of service, but not by
asking for separate electorates for them. By giving them separate electorates you will
throw the apple of discord between the 'untouchables' and the orthodox. You must
understand I can tolerate the proposal for special representation of the Musalmans and the
Sikhs only as a necessary evil. It would be a positive danger for the ' untouchables '. I
am certain that the question of separate electorates for the ' untouchables ' is modern
manufacture of Government. The only thing needed is to put them on the voters' list, and
provide for fundamental rights for them in the constitution. In case they are unjustly
treated and their representative is deliberately excluded, they would have the right to
special election tribunal which would give them complete protection. It should be open to
these tribunals to order the unseating of an elected candidate and the election of the
excluded man."

"Separate electorates to the
'untouchables' will ensure them bondage in perpetuity. The Musalmans will never cease to
be Musalmans by having separate electorates. Do you want the 'untouchables' to remain
'untouchables' for ever? Well, the separate electorates would perpetuate the stigma. What
is needed is destruction of untouchability, and when you have done it, the bar sinister
which has been imposed by an insolent ' superior ' class upon an ' inferior ' class will
be destroyed. When you have destroyed the bar sinister, to whom will you give the separate
electorates ? Look at the history of Europe. Have you got separate electorates for the
working classes or women? With adult franchise, you give the ' untouchables ' complete
security. Even the orthodox would have to approach them for votes."

" How then, you ask, does Dr. Ambedkar,
their representative, insist on separate electorates for them ? I have the highest regard
for Dr. Ambedkar. He has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our heads is an
act of self-restraint on his part. He is today so much saturated with suspicion that he
cannot see anything else. He sees in every Hindu a determined opponent of the '
untouchables ', and it is quite natural. The same thing happened to me in my early days in
South Africa, where I was hounded out by the Europeans wherever I went. It is quite
natural for him to vent his wrath. But the separate electorates that he seeks will not
give him social reform. He may himself mount to power and position but nothing good will
accrue to the ' untouchables '. I can say all this with authority, having lived with the
'untouchables' and having shared their joys and sorrows all these years."

His argument it is true derives some support
from the Simon Commission which also observed: ( The
following extracts are not quoted in the MS. They are reproduced here from Dr. Ambedkar's
' What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables ', Appendix VI, p. 327.
Ed.)

(Extracts
from the Report of the Simon Commission, Vol. II)

78.In no other province has it been possible to get an estimate of the number of the
depressed classes who are qualified to vote. It is clear that even with a considerable
lowering of the franchisewhich would no doubt increase the proportion of the
depressed class votersthere would be no hope of the depressed classes getting their
own representatives elected in general constituencies without special provision being made
to secure it. In the long run the progress of the depressed classes, so far as it can be
secured by the exercise by them of political influence, will depend on their getting a
position of sufficient importance for other elements to seek their support and to consider
their needs.

***

80.......It will be seen, therefore, that we do
not recommend allocating seats to the depressed classes on the basis of their full
population ratio. The scale of reserved representation suggested will secure a substantial
increase in the number of the M.L.C.s drawn from the depressed classes. The poverty and
want of education which so widely prevail amongst them make it extremely doubtful whether
a large number of adequately equipped members could be at once provided, and it is far
better that they should be represented by qualified spokesmen rather than by a larger
number of ineffectives who are only too likely to be subservient to higher castes. The
re-distribution of seats which is now being attempted among different kinds of
representatives cannot be permanent, and provision must be made for its revision. But we
think that our proposal is adequate for the present, especially as the representation of
opinion by reservation of seats does not exclude the possibility of the capture of other
seats not so reserved.

***

But that this argument is silly there can be no
doubt about it. To put a man in a separate category from others is not necessarily an
evil. Whether the affixing of a label is good or bad depends upon the underlying purpose.
If the object is to deprive him of rights then such a labelling would no doubt be a
grievous wrong. But if the purpose is to mark off as a recipient of a privilege then far
from being a wrong it would be a most beneficial measure. To enrol an untouchable in a
separate electoral roll would be objectionable if the object was to deprive him of the
right of franchise. To enrol him in a separate electoral roll for giving him the benefit
of special representation would certainly be an advantage to him. Looked at from the point
of view of ultimate purpose it is difficult to see how any person who claims to be the
friend of the untouchables could object to separate electorates for them. Not only the
argument of Gandhi against separate electorate was silly it was also insincere. Gandhi
objected to separate electorates because it involved labelling of the Untouchables. But
how is this labelling avoided injoint electorates it is difficult to understand. The
reservation of a seat for the Untouchables in a joint electorate must and does involve
such labelling for the candidate claiming the benefit of the reserved must in law declare
that he is an untouchable. To that extent there is certainly a labelling involving in the
Joint Electorate and Mr. Gandhi should have objected to joint electorates as violently as
he did to separate electorates., Either Mr. Gandhi was insincere or that he did not know
what he was talking about.

Friends of Mr. Gandhi do not stop to consider
how far under the Poona Pact the Untouchables have been able to send independent men to
represent them in the Legislature and whether these representatives have been putting up
any fight and how well they are succeeding. If they stopped to do it they would be ashamed
to sing the praises of the joint electorates and the Poona Pact. The Congress and the
Hindus have shamefully abused their power and their resources as a majority community. Not
only have they prevented the Untouchables from electing persons of their choice, not only
have they got their own nominees elected by the use of their surplus votes, they have done
something for which any decent party in any part of the world ashamed of itself. The
selection of the candidates from the untouchables made by the Congress to fill the seats
reserved for the Untouchables was a most cowardly and a blackguardly act.

It was open to the Congresswhich is
simply a political surname for Hindusto allow the Untouchables the benefits of more
seats than those fixed for them by the Poona Pact. They could have done that by adopting
untouchable candidates to contest general seats. There was nothing in law to prevent them
from doing so. The Congress did nothing of the kind. This shows that if no seat had been
reserved to the Untouchables, the Hindus would never have cared to see that an untouchable
was returned to the legislature. On the other hand when seats were reserved, the Hindus
came forward to spoil the effect of the reservation by seeing to it that the seats went to
such untouchables as agreed to be their slaves.

Thus there has been a tragic end to this fight
of the untouchables for political rights. I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Gandhi
is solely responsible for this tragedy.

Mr. Gandhi's cry against the Communal Award on
the ground that it prescribed separate electorates was absolutely false and if the Hindus
had not become maddened by his fast they would have seen that it was so. The Communal
Award had also a provision for joint electorates in addition to separate electorates. The
second vote given to the Untouchables was to be exercised in a general electorate in the
election of a Caste Hindu candidate. This was undoubtedly a system of joint electorates.
The difference between the Communal Award and the Poona Pact does lie in the nature of
electorates. Both provide for joint electorates. The difference lies in this, joint
electorate of the Communal Award was intended to enable the Untouchables to take part and
influence the election of the Caste Hindu candidate while the joint electorate of the
Poona Pact is intended to enable the caste.

Hindus to take part and influence the election
of the Untouchable candidates. This is the real difference between the two.

What would a friend of the Untouchables wish?
Would he support the joint electorates of the Communal Award or the joint electorates of
the Poona Pact ? There can be no doubt that the real salvation of the Untouchables lies in
making the Hindus dependent upon the suffrages of the Untouchables. This is what the
Communal Award did. To make the Untouchables depend upon the suffrages of the Hindus is to
make them the slaves of the Hindus which they already are. This is what the Poona Pact
does. The Communal Award was intended to free the Untouchables from the thraldom of the
Hindus. The Poona Pact is designed to place them under the domination of the Hindus.

This 'Fast unto Death' of Mr. Gandhi was
described in glorious terms by his friends and admirers both in India and outside. It was
described as ' second crucifixion ', as ' martyrdom ' and as ' Triumphal struggle'. An
American friend of Mr. Gandhi assured the Americans that in laying down his life Mr.
Gandhi was neither a ' trickster ' nor a stick demagogue. Another American in his ecstasy
went to the length of describing him as the incarnation of 'one against the world'. Of course I was held out
as the villain of the piece. I had of course my own view of Gandhi's fast. I described it
as a political stunt. His utterances had to me always the ring of falsity and even of
insincerity.

I had always the feeling that what actuated Mr.
Gandhi to fast against the Communal Award was not any desire to liberate the Untouchables
as to save the Hindus from disruption. He was prepared to do that at any cost, even at the
cost of political enslavement of the Untouchables. His disapproval of the Poona Pact was
very much like the disapproval of the enfranchisement of the Negro by the Southerners
after the civil war. The ' Statesman ' and 'Nation ' came to the same conclusion. It said:
(Quotation not mentioned in the MS nor could it be
traced elsewhereEd.)

At the time there was this one solitary
instance of a view agreeing with mine. Even some of the prominent untouchables backed Mr.
Gandhi. A curious case was that of Mr. Raja whose grievance was that although he was a
member of the Central Assembly nominated to represent the Depressed Classes he was not
selected as a delegate for the Round Table Conference. He was fighting for separate
electorates. Suddenly he changed sides and took up the cudgels on behalf of Mr. Gandhi and
fulminated both against me for demanding and against the British Government for granting
separate electorates. He developed such a strong love for Mr. Gandhi and such a strong
faith in the Hindus that no one could suspect that he was doing the work of a mere
hireling. This is what Mr. Raja said in the course of a speech delivered by him on an
adjournment motion moved in the Central Legislature on September 13th, 1932 relating to
Gandhi's fast.

" Never in the annals of the history of
India has the issue of the Depressed Classes assumed importance as it has today, and for
this we of the Depressed Classes must for ever be grateful to Mahatma Gandhi. He has told
the world, in words which cannot be mistaken, that our regeneration is the fundamental aim
of his life. If world conscience cannot be roused even now to the realization of the
position of the Depressed Classes, then we can only conclude that all instincts of
humanity are dead in the world today."

***

"The question before the House is the situation created by Mahatma
Gandhi opposing the grant of communal electorates to the Depressed Classes. I am sure
there is no honourable member in this House who will not regret that circumstances should
have forced such a great personality to take a vow to play on his life, but sir, the
correspondence shows that Government had enough warning. If they did not attach full
importance to our considered views expressed in our conferences and in the Rajah-Moonje
Pact I had signed with the President of Hindu Mahasabha, they should have taken at least
the grave warning given by Mahatma Gandhi and desisted from the course of creating
separate electorates."

***

"Indeed this is my chief attack on the
Premier's letter to Mahatma Gandhi. He tells us that he has given separate electorates for
twenty years to enable us to get the minimum number of seats to place our views before the
Government and legislature of the day. I contend that this privilege we have already
enjoyed under the Montford reforms which have enabled us to get representation in numerous
local bodies and in legislatures both provincial and central. We are sufficiently
organized for that purpose and do not need either special pleading or special succour. In
future what we do need as real remedy for our uplift is definite power to elect our
representatives from the general constituencies and hold them responsible to us for their
actions. I do not know why the Prime Minister calls the scheme of joint electorates with
reservation of seats as impracticable. It is already in force in local bodies in Madras
and some other provinces and has worked very satisfactorily. I contend, sir, that the
scheme enunciated in the communal decision involves our segregation and makes us
politically untouchables. I am surprised at the argument of the Prime Minister that there
is no segregation because we can vote for Caste Hindus who will have to solicit our votes.
But, sir, how can we bring about common ideal of citizenship when Depressed Class
representatives are not to solicit votes of higher castes?"

***

"The sufferings which my community has
undergone at the hands of Caste Hindus have been acknowledged by Caste Hindus themselves,
and I am prepared to admit that there are a large number of reformers among them who are
doing everything possible to improve our status and position. I am convinced that there is
a change of heart and a change in the angle of vision of Caste Hindus. We, Depressed
Classes, feel ourselves as true Hindus as any Caste Hindu can be, and we feel that the
moral conscience of the Hindus has been roused to the extent that our salvation lies in
bringing about a change from within the main body of Hindu society and not segregating
ourselves from them. The course adopted by the Government would certainly arrest the
progress of this most laudable movement. I must say, sir, that the Prime Minister's letter
in its entire conception, and expression has disappointed me."

" The crisis
that faces us today is very grave. There hangs in the balance the life of the greatest
Indian of our time, and there hangs in the balance the future of millions of the
down-trodden people of this country. Is Government going to take the responsibility for
killing the one and reducing the other to perpetual servitude? Let it make its choice well
and wisely."

***

Mr. Raja not only backed the Poona Pact and
fought for distributive vote which as I pointed out was nothing but a part of the design
of the Hindus to make the political enslavement of the Untouchables fool-proof and
knave-proof. Mr. Raja was so much enamoured of his new faith in Gandhi and Hindus that he
was not satisfied by the disposal of the matter by the Hammond Committee. He reopened the
matter after election by moving a resolution in the Madras Assembly in favour of the
distributive vote1.

But today after seeing the results of the Poona
Pact Mr. Raja seems to have been disillusioned. How long he will remain faithful to the
truth he has discovered is more than I can say. But he has declared himself openly as a
bitter opponent of the Poona Pact. In a letter to Mr. Gandhi, dated 25th August 1938, Mr.
Raja says:

" You remember how, when most of my people
were in favour of separate electorates so that they may express themselves faithfully and
effectively in the legislatures, you staked your life on bringing them into the Hindu fold
not only politically but socially and religiously. And I was in no small measure
responsible for my people going in for a joint electorate with Caste Hindus on the express
understanding that there was to be no interference with our choosing men who would
faithfully represent our grievances and wishes. It was with this object that the panel
election was instituted.

" All this you know as well as I do. But
my object in recalling the fact is to show that while on our part we faithfully adhered to
the Poona Pact, giving up agitating for a separate electorate, the Congress Party men in
Madras representing the Caste Hindus deviated from the Pact, so much so, that our
community in the Legislative Assembly have to follow the Caste Hindus blindly in Madras
Legislative Assembly Debates. Every measure the Ministry may bring and vote with them even
in matters which deeply affect the interests of the community.

" You perhaps remember that at the
beginning of the elections I protested against the Congress Committee setting up
candidates for the panel election among the Depressed Classes. You were good enough to say
that I might allow my community joining the Congress on certain conditions placed before
us by Mr. S. Satyamurti. One of these conditions was that in matters affecting their
community, the Depressed Class members of the Congress Party need not vote with the
Congress members but vote according to their judgement.

"The recent debate on the Temple Entry
Bill in the Madras Legislative Assembly has exposed the ugly fact that all Depressed Class
Members driven by the discipline of the Congress Party in the Assembly voted solidly
against my motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Could anything be more
unnatural and more humiliating, proving as it did the subjugation of my community by the
Caste Hindus represented by Mr. Rajagopalachariar?

"You know the provisions of the Bill. It
was only a piece of permissive legislation making it possible for a majority of
worshippers of a temple to allow Harijans to worship in the temple. There was no element
of compulsion or coercion in it. This Bill had your blessing. It was drafted by Mr.
Rajagopalachariar himself and approved by you.

" At a previous session of the Assembly I
introduced the Bill with the consent of Mr. Rajagopalachariar, who promised his full
support to the measure. When I suggested that the Bill might be introduced by him as a
Government measure, he wanted me to introduce it. When I met him last, on the 12th July
1938 and informed him that I was giving notice of a motion for referring the Bill to a
Select Committee he did not object.

"I do not know what happened in the
meantime but two days before my motion for referring the Bill to the Select Committee came
up before the house, Mr. Rajagopalachariar sent for me and quietly asked me to withdraw
the Bill, which I refused to do. When in due course, I moved for the consideration of the
Bill, Mr. Rajagopalachariar stood up and opposed the Bill and requested me to withdraw it,
saying that he would introduce a Temple Entry Bill on the same lines, only for Malabar and
not for other Districts.

"The effect of Mr. Rajagopalachariar's
speech was to defeat my motion with my own community men registering their votes against
the measure, introduced to secure their social and religious elevation. One effect of Mr.
Rajagopalachariar's opposition will be to strengthen the opposition in the country to
temple entry as a whole.

" All this makes me uneasy about the
wisdom of our havirig been parties to the Poona Pact in the
full belief that the Congress would really help in our attempt to secure social and
religious freedom. I am forced to think that our entering the joint electorate with the
caste Hindus under the leadership of the Congress, far from helping us, has enabled the
Congress, led by Caste Hindu leaders to destroy our independence and to use us to cut our
own throats.

"In the course of the debate, I asked Mr.
Rajagopalachariar whether he had obtained your approval of the attitude which he so
suddenly and unexpectedly assumed and the Speaker said that Mr. Rajagopalachariar will be
given an opportunity to answer the question after I had done. Though he was given the
privilege of speaking after me, he avoided the question and did not answer it at all.

" I trust that you will give your most
serious consideration to this question of the attitude of the Congress Ministry in Madras
towards Harijan uplift, especially with regard to temple entry and let me have your view
before I answer my community men who are very much exercised over this question and are
contemplating a repudiation of the Poona Pact and an agitation for a separate electorate
accompanied by direct action of some kind." Mr. Rajah also wired to Mahatma Gandhi,
Wardha on 12th September 1938 as follows:

I must apologise for the delay in replying to
your letter, I have been overwhelmed with work. Now I have your wire.

I wish you would trust C. Rajagopalachariar to
do his best. He should be allowed to do the thing in his own way. If you cannot trust,
naturally you will take the course which commends itself to you. All I know is that
Harijans have no better friend than him. Go to him, reason with him and if you cannot
persuade him, bear with him. That is my advice."

Mr. Rajah wrote a letter dated 21st September
1938 to Mr. Gandhi stating:

"I should request you on the other hand to give more serious
consideration to the pledges given to my community during the Yeravada Fast and to the way
in which they are carried out by your plenipotentiary in Madras. That fast was undertaken
by you in order to change the Communal Award providing separate electorates for my people
and to bring them into joint electorate with Caste Hindus by promising to spare no efforts
to remove untouchability. And you have more than once said that temple entry is of the
very essence of the removal of untouchability.

" So the question of our being in a joint
electorate with Caste Hindus and the attitude of the Congress Ministry towards the raising
of the social and religious status of the community are mutually and vitally connected.

"If we are not free to enter into Hindu
Temples, we are no Hindus, and if we are not Hindus why should we be in a joint electorate
with them? Is it for swelling their numbers as against Muslims and other communities?

" If you look at the situation in Madras
from this point of view, you will realise that the rejection of the Temple Entry Bill is a
gross betrayal of the Depressed Classes by the Congress Government in Madras.

" Any amount of money spent out of public
funds or even from private resources for the amelioration of the economic condition of my
community will be no substitute for the removal of untouchability through temple entry. As
you yourself once said temple entry is the acid test of the sincerity of the caste Hindus
in espousing the cause of the Depressed Classes.

"Mr. Rajagopalachariar's Temple Entry
Bill, besides involving the tactical choice of a difficult district makes our community
subservient to the will of Caste Hindus, a policy which is given a further effect to, in
the appointment of Advisory Boards to assist the Labour Commissioner in which Caste Hindus
of the HarijanSevak Sanghs in
this Province are given Government facilities for guiding the destinies of my people. I do
not expect you to agree with my views onthemeasuresrecentlyintroducedbyMr. Rajagopalachariar after rejecting the Madras Temple Entry Bill; but I expect
you to give more serious consideration to the situation in Madras as regards the Depressed
Classes in the light of the pledges given to the Depressed Classes during your memorable
fast.

" You are morally bound to make this a
matter of conscience and not merely one of political strategy. I assure that if you should
seek ' inner light ' on this subject of untouchability and temple entry you will speak out
more plainly and make the necessary sacrifice to educate your followers.

" I propose to send this correspondence to
the press, but I shall wait for any further word from you till the end of this
month."

Mr. Gandhi replied to the above on 5th October
1938: "Dear friend,

" I am working under great difficulty.
Even this I am writing in the train taking me to Peshawar.

"Of course you will publish the correspondence between us whenever you think it
necessary.

" Your last letter shows that you are in
the wrong. I am not partial to Rajaji. But I know that he is as firm on untouchability as
I am myself. I must, therefore, trust his judgement as to how to do the thing. From this
distance, I can't judge his action. Do you not see that the whole of the movement is one
of conversion of the Sanatani heart ? You cannot force the pace except to the extent that
reforms immolate themselves. This process is going on vigorously.

" This temple entry question is a
mighty-religious reform. I would like you to apply your religious mind to it. If you will,
you will give your whole hearted support to Rajaji and make his move a thorough
success."

The Untouchables of U.P. have also expressed
their hostility to the Poona Pact. In a Memorandum submitted to Col. Muirhead the Under
Secretary of State in India they said: (Memorandum
not typed in the MS. Ed.)

All over India the Untouchables have realized
that the Poona Pact has been a trap and the change of the British Government's Communal
Award by Gandhi's Poona Pact is a change which in reality a change from freedom to
bondage.

The Poona Pact was signed on the 24th September
1932. On the 25th September 1932 a public meeting of the Hindus was held in Bombay to accord to it their support. At
that meeting the following resolution was passed:

"This Conference confirms the Poona agreement arrived at between the leaders of the
Caste Hindus and Depressed Classes on September 24, 1932, and trusts that the British
Government will withdraw its decision creating separate electorates within the Hindu
community and accept the agreement in full. The Conference urges that immediate action be
taken by Government so as to enable Mahatma Gandhi to break his fast within the terms of
his vow and before it becomes too late. The Conference appeals to the leaders of the
communities concerned to realize the implications of the agreement and of this resolution
and to make earnest endeavour to fulfil them.

This Conference resolves that henceforth,
amongst Hindus, no one shall be regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth, and
that those who have been so regarded hitherto will have the same right as other Hindus in
regard to the use of public wells, public schools, public roads, and all other public
institutions. This right shall have statutory recognition at the first opportunity and
shall be one of the earliest Acts of the Swaraj Parliament, if it shall not have received
such recognition before that time.

It is further agreed that it shall be the duty
of all Hindu leaders to secure, by every legitimate and peaceful means, an early removal
of all social disabilities now imposed by custom upon the so-called untouchable classes,
including the bar in respect of admission to temples."

Mr. Gandhi felt that an organization which will
devote itself exclusively to the problem of the Untouchables was necessary. Accordingly
there was established on 28th September 1932 the All-India Anti-Untouchability League. The
name, Gandhi thought, did not smell well. Therefore in December 1932 it was given a new
nameThe Servants of the Untouchables Society. That name again was not as sweet as
Mr. Gandhi wished it to be. He changed and called it the Harjan Sevak Sangh.

The first change which Mr. Gandhi has brought
about is this change in the name. Instead of being called Untouchables they are now called
Harijans. To call, the Untouchables say that Mr.
Gandhi is selfish and has given the name Harijan to the Untouchables to blaster up
Vaishnavism. They want the Untouchables to be called Harjans the followers of Shiva. Mr.
Gandhi replies that the term is used to mean God and not Vishnu and that Harijan simply
means ' children of God '.

The Untouchables simply detest the name
Harijan. Various grounds of objection are urged against the name. In the first place it
has not bettered their position. It has not elevated them in
the eyes of the Hindus. The new name has become completely identified with the subject
matter of the old. Every body knows that Harijans are simply no other than the old
Untouchables. The new name provides no escape to the Untouchables from the curse of
untouchability. With the new name they are damned as much as they were with the old.
Secondly the Untouchables say that they prefer to be called Untouchables. They argue that
it is better that the wrong should be called by its known name. It is better for the
patient to know what he is suffering from. It is better for the wrong doer that the wrong
is there still to be redressed. Any concealment will give a false sense of both as to
existing facts. The new name in so far as it is a concealment is fraud upon the
Untouchables and a false absolution to the Hindus. Thirdly there is also the feeling that
the name Harijan is indicative of pity. If the name meant ' chosen people of God ' as the
Jews claimed themselves to be it would have been a different matter. But to call them
'children of God' is to invite pity from their tyrants by pointing out their helplessness
and their dependent condition. The more manly among the Untouchables resent the degrading
implications of this new name. How great is the resentment of the Untouchables against
this new name can be seen from the fact that whole body of the representatives of the
Untouchables in the Bombay Legislative Assembly walked out of the House in protest when
the Congress Government introduced a measure giving to the name Harijan the sanction of
law.

This new name Harijan will remain until the
downfall of Mr. Gandhi and the overthrow of the Congress Governments which are his
creatures. That it was forced upon the Untouchables and that it has done no good are
however facts which cannot be disputed.

Having discussed the blessings of this new name
I must now proceed to examine the work of the Harijan Sevak Sangh. The Sangh is spoken of
as a memorial to Gandhi's labours in the cause of the Untouchables. What are the
achievements of the Sangh.

The Sangh is an All-India Organization. It has
a Central Board. Then there are Provincial Boards and under the Provincial Boards there
are District and Local Committees. The number of Provincial Boards and Local Committees is
given below:

1932-33

1933-34

1934-35

Provincial Boards

26

26

29

District & Local
Committees

213

313

372

The financial resources of the Sangh are mainly
drawn from the collections made on an All-India tour specially undertaken for the purpose
by Mr. Gandhi between November 1933 to July 1934. The total amount collected on this tour
came to about 8 lacs of Rupees and is known as the Gandhi Purse Fund and forms the
principal reserve for the Sangh to draw upon. The rest of the resources are made up of
annual donations.

The total expenditure of the Sangh under all
heads from year to year is as follows:

1932-33

1933-34

1934-35

1935-36

Rs. 2,31,039.00

3,31,791.00

4,48,422.00

3,99354.00

In his report for 1934-35 the General Secretary
reported that almost the whole of the Gandhi Purse Fund, which stood at over 8 lacs in
July 1934, will be spent away by the end of the current year, i.e. by the end of September
1936." In the fifth Annual Report the Secretary says, " As compared to the
expenditure of the previous year, there has been a reduction of more than a lac in the
total expenditure. This was partly owing to the gradual exhaustion of the Gandhi Purse
Fund, dislocation in the realization of local collections owing to general elections and
other contributory causes. The finances of the Central office were far from satisfactory.
The total expenditure of the Central office (including grants made to branches) amounted
to Rs. 86,610-14-8, as against an income of Rs. 42,485-4-9 thus leaving a deficit of Rs.
44,125-9-11 which was met from the general fund. Donations for general fund amounted to
only Rs. 26,173-4."

It is obvious that the Harijan Sevak Sangh is a small affair and but for the running advertisement
it gets from the Press it would not even be heared off. India is a vast continent with
something like 6,96,831 [f74]villages. The Untouchables are spread out all throughout
these 6,96,831 villages. There is no village without its untouchables. How many
Untouchables can be reached by 372 Committees. It is a tiny peck in a vast ocean. Not only
its capacity to cope with the problem is limited but its resources are too meagre to
permit any relief being granted to the Untouchables on an adequate scale. The Sangh has
now no permanent fund. What it had it has spent. It has to depend upon annual
subscriptions. That source is also drying up leaving the Sangh with heavy deficit. The
Sangh is in an exhausted condition. Its affairs in fact would have been wound up on
account of its bankruptcy. If the Sangh is still existing, it is not because its
endeavours are sustained by Hindu charity directed to the uplift of the Untouchables. It
exists because the Congress Governments which are now established in the different
Provinces have come to the rescue of the Sangh. They have handed over to the Sangh certain
social welfare work which former Governments carried out through Government Departments or
Government Officials with the money grants. Thus the Sangh is now living on Government
funds. As an institution maintained by the Hindus with the help of Hindu Charity for the
Untouchables the Sangh simply does not exist.

The din and noise which was created by Mr. Gandhi's fast was simply deafening. The readiness to make
sacrifices to save his life was great and the eagerness shown to befriend the Untouchables
was surprising and overwhelming. All this has vanished leaving the Untouchables high and
dry. If the desire to contribute towards the maintenance of the Sanghwhich the
Hindus founded as an earnest of their acceptance of their obligation towards the
Untouchablesis any measure of the reality of the change of heart then it must be
admitted that the change has died with the occasion which caused it. Gandhi broke his fast
and the Hindu lost his new-born love for the Utitouchables.

The premature decay of the Sangh should make it
unnecessary for me to consider the work it did. But the Sangh is held out as a great
monument to Mr. Gandhi. It is therefore proper that I should examine the work done by the
Sangh and the policy underlying that work. The work of the Sangh follows certain well
defined lines. In the field of education the Sangh has sought to encourage higher
education among the Untouchables by instituting scholarships for the Arts, technical and
professional courses. The Sangh also gives scholarships to High School students. The Sangh
also maintainedHostels for Untouchable
students attending colleges and High Schools. The great part of the educational activities
of the Sangh is taken up in maintaining separate schools for primary stage children where
there were no common schools in the vicinity or where common schools were closed to them.

Next comes the welfare activities of the Sangh. The medical aid which the
Sangh undertakes to render to the Untouchables falls under this head. This is done by
intenerant workers of the Sangh who go in Harijan quarters to give medical aid to the sick
and ailing among the Untouchables. The Sangh also maintains a few dispensaries for the use
of the untouchables. This is a very small activity of the Sangh.

The more important part of the welfare activity
of the Sangh relates to water supply. The Sangh does this by (1) sinking new wells or
installing tube wells and pumps for the use of the untouchables, (2) repairing old ones
and (3) persuading local Governments and bodies to sink and repair wells for the
Untouchables.

The third line of activity undertaken by the
Sangh is economic. The Sangh seems to run a few industrial schools and it is claimed that
the industrial schools run by the Sangh produced a number of trained artizans who have
taken to independent living. But according to the report, more successful and substantial
work was done by way of organising and supervising cooperative societies among the
Untouchables.

Such is in brief the record of the work done by
the Sangh. It is largely directed by the Caste Hindus. There are very few Untouchables who
have any voice in directing the activities of the Sangh. I have had no connection with the
Sangh. But I might mention that when the Sangh was started I was invited to join. I had great desire to
cooperate with the Hindus for the removal of untouchability.
I had my own views regarding the policy and programme which the Sangh should adopt for
accomplishing this task. Immediately after the Sangh was established I had to go to London
to attend the Round Table Conference and had no opportunity to talk the matter over with
the other members of the Sangh. But I posted a letter to the General Secretary of the
Sangh Mr. Thakkar on the 14th November 1932 on Board the
Ship M. V. " Victoria
". Excepting a short introductory para which I omit, the following is the full
text of the letter:

" In my opinion there can be two distinct
methods of approaching the task of uplifting the Depressed Classes. There is a school
which proceeds on the assumption that the fate of the individual belonging to the
Depressed Classes is bound up with his personal conduct. If he is suffering from want and
misery it is because he must be vicious and sinful. Starting from this hypothesis, this
school of social workers concentrates all its efforts and its resources on fostering
personal virtue by adopting a programme which includes items such as temperance,
gymnasium, co-operation, libraries, schools etc., which are calculated to make the
individual a better and virtuous individual. In my opinion there is also another method of
approach to this problem. It starts with the hypothesis that the fate of the individual is
governed by his environment and the circumstances he is obliged to live under and if an
individual is suffering from want and misery it is because his environment is not
propitious.

"I have no doubt that of the two views the
latter is the more correct. The former may raise a few stray individuals above the level
of the class to which they belong. It cannot lift the class as a whole. My view of the aim
of the Anti-Untouchability League is that it has come into existence not for helping a few
individuals at random or a few selected boys belonging to the Depressed Classes but for
raising the whole class to a higher level. Consequently I would not like the League to
dissipate its energies one programme calculated to foster private virtue. I would like the
Board to concentrate all its energies on a programme that will effect a change in the
social environment of the Depressed Classes. Having stated in general terms my views I
venture to place some concrete proposals for work to be undertaken by the League.

"I think the first thing that the League
should undertake is a campaign all over India to secure to the Depressed Classes the
enjoyment of their civic rights such as taking water from the village wells, entry in
village schools, admission to village chawdi, use of public conveyance etc.

"Such a programme if carried into village
will bring about the necessary social revolution in the Hindu society without which it
will never be possible for the Depressed Classes to get equal social status. The Board
must however know what difficulties it will have to face if this campaign of civic rights
is to be carried through. Here I can speak from experience because I as President know
what happened when the Depressed Classes Institute and the Social Equality League launched
such a plan in the Kolaba and Nasik Districts of the Bombay Presidency.

" First of all there will be riots between
the Depressed Classes and the Caste Hindus which will result in breaking heads and in
criminal prosecutions of one side or the other. In this struggle the Depressed Classes
will suffer badly. There has not been a single case in the course of the social struggle
carried on in these two districts in which the Police and the Magistracy have come to the
rescue of the Depressed Classes even when justice was on their side. Secondly the villages
will proclaim a complete boycott of the Depressed Classes the moment they see that the
latter are trying to reach a status of equality along with them.

"I have mentioned only two of the many
obstacles which the League will have to overcome if this campaign of civic rights is to be
successful and the League will have to have an army of workers in the rural parts who will
encourage the Depressed Classes to fight for their rights and who will help them in any
legal proceedings arising therefrom to a successful issue. It is true that this programme
involves social disturbances and violent scuffle. But I do not think that it can be
avoided. I know the alternative policy of adopting the line of least resistance. I am
convinced that it will be ineffective in the matter of uprooting untouchability.

" The silent
infiltration of rational ideas among the ignorant mass of Caste Hindus cannot, I am sure,
work for the salvation of the Depressed Classes. First of all the Caste Hindu like all
human beings follows his customary conduct in observing untouchability towards the
Depressed Classes. Ordinarily, people do not give up their customary mode of behaviour
because somebody is preaching against it.

" The
salvation of the Depressed Classes will come only when the Caste Hindu is made to think
and is forced to feel that he must alter his ways. For that you must create a crisis by
direct action against his customary code of conduct. The crisis will compel him to think
and once he begins to think he will be more ready to change than he is otherwise likely to
be.

"The great defect in the policy of least
resistence and silent infiltration of rational ideas lies in this that they do not '
compel ' for they do not produce crisis. The direct action in respect of the Chowdar tank
in Mahad, the Kalaram temple in Nasik and the Guruvayur temple in Malabar have done in a
few days what million days of preaching by reformers would never have done.

"The second thing I would like the
Anti-Untouchability League to work for is to bring about equality of opportunity for the
Depressed Classes. Much of the misery and poverty of the Depressed Classes is due to the
absence of equality of opportunity which in its turn is due to Untouchability. I am sure
you are aware that the Depressed Classes in villages and even in towns cannot sell
vegetables, milk or butter  ways of earning a living which are open to all and
sundry. A Caste Hindu, will buy these things from a Non-Hindu, but he will not buy them
from the Depressed Classes. In the matter of employment his condition is the worst.

" Like the Negro in America he is the last
to be employed in days of prosperity and the first to be fired in days of adversity. And
even when he gets a foothold what are his prospects ? In the Cotton Mills in Bombay and
Ahmedabad he is confined to the lowest paid department where he can earn only Rs. 25 per month. More paying departments like the weaving
department are permanently closed to them. The place of the boss is reserved for the caste
Hindu while the Depressed Class worker must slave as his underdog no matter how senior or
how efficient.

" Depressed Class women working in the
winding or reeling departments have come to me in hundreds complaining that the Naikins,
instead of distributing the raw material to all womenemployees equally or in fair proportion, give all of it to the caste Hindu women
and leave them in the cold."

"I think it would be fit and proper if the
Anti-Untouchability League were to take up this question by creating public opinion in
condemnation of it and establishing Bureaus to deal with urgent cases of inequality.

" Lastly I think the League should attempt
to dissolve that nausea which the touchables feel towards the untouchables and which is
the reason why the two sections have remained so much apart as to constitute separate and
distinct entities. In my opinion the best way of achieving it is to establish closer
contact between the two. Only a common cycle of participation can help people to overcome
that strangeness of feeling which one has when brought into contact with the other.
Nothing can do this more effectively in my opinion than the admission of the Depressed
Classes to the houses of the caste Hindus as guests or servants.

"The live contact thus established will
familiarize both to a common and associated life and will pave the way for that unity
which we are all striving after. I am sorry that many caste Hindus who have shown
themselves responsive are not prepared for this.

"During those ten days of the Mahatma's
fast that shook the Indian world there were cases in Ville Parle and in Mahad where the
caste Hindu servants had struck work because their masters had abrogated the rules of
untouchability by fraternising with theUntouchables.
I expected that they would end the strike and teach a lesson to the erring masses by
filling the vacancies by employing Depressed Classes in their places. Instead of doing
that they capitulated with the forces of orthodoxy and strengthened them. I do not know
how far such fair-weather friends of the Depressed Classes would be of help to them.

" People in distress can have very little
consolation from the fact that they have sympathisers if those sympathisers will do
nothing more than sympathise and I may as well tell the League that the Depressed Classes
will never be satisfied of the bona fides of these caste Hindu sympathisers until it is
proved that they are prepared to go to the same length of fighting against their own kith
and kin in actual warfare if it came to that for the sake of the Depressed Classes as the
Whites of the North did against their own kith and kin namely the Whites of the South for
the sake of the emancipation of the Negro.

" The League will have to employ a very
large army of workers to carry out its programme. The appointment of social workers might
perhaps be looked upon as a minor question. Speaking for myself, I attach very great
importance to the selection of a proper agency to be employed in this behalf. There can
always be found workers to do a particular piece of work or any other for the matter of
that if they are paid for it. I am sure such mercenary workers will not serve the purpose
of the League. As Tolstoy said "Only those who love can serve ". In my opinion
that test is more likely to be fulfilled by workers drawn from the Depressed Classes. I
should therefore like the League to bear this aspect of the question in mind in deciding
upon whom to appoint and whom not to appoint. I do not suggest that there are hot
scoundrels among the Depressed Classes who have not made social service their last refuge.
But largely speaking you can be more sure that a worker drawn from the Depressed Classes
will regard the work as love's labour a thing which is so essential to the success of the
League.

" Secondly there are agencies which are
already engaged in some sort of social service without any confines as to class or purpose
and may be prepared to supplement their activity by taking up the work of the
Anti-Untouchability League in consideration of a grant-in-aid. I am sure this
hire-purchase system of work, if I may use that expression, can produce no lasting good.
What is wanted in an agency is a single-minded devotion to one task only. We want bodies
and organizations which have deliberately chosen to be narrow-minded in order to be
enthusiastic about their cause. The work if it is to be assigned must be assigned to those
who would undertake to devote themselves exclusively to the work of the Depressed Classes.

" Before closing this I wish to say just
this. It was Balfour, I think, who said that what could hold the British Empire together
was love and not law. I think that observation applies equally well to the Hindu society.

" The touchables and the untouchables
cannot be held together bylaw, certainly not
by any electoral law substituting joint electorates for separate electorates. The only
thing that can hold them together is love.

"Outside the family, justice alone, in my
opinion can open the possibility of love, and it should be the duty of the Anti-Untouchability League to see that the touchable does, or failing that,
is made to do justice to the untouchable. Nothing else in my opinion can justify the
project or the existence of the League." This letter was not even acknowledged by the
Secretary. That not a single suggestion of mine was accepted goes without saying. Even my
suggestion that the workers of the Sangh should be drawn largely from the Untouchables
themselves was not accepted. Indeed when the attention of Mr. Gandhi was drawn to the fact
that the HarijanSevak Sangh
had become the hive of mercenary Hindus, he defended it on the ground which are clever if
not honest. [f75]He said to the deputation of
the Untouchables;

" The
welfare work of the Untouchables is a penance which the Hindus have to do for the sin of Untouchability. The money that has been collected has been
contributed by the Hindus. From both points of view the Hindus alone must run the Sangh.
Neither ethics nor right would justify Untouchables in claiming a seat on the Board of the
Sangh."

Not only were all my proposals rejected by Mr.
Gandhi and his advisers but in framing the constitution of the Sangh, aims and objects
were adopted which are quite opposed to those which I had suggested. [f76]At the meeting held in Cowasjee Jehangir Hall in Bombay on
the 30th September 1932 the aims of the organization were stated to be:

"Carrying propaganda against
Untouchability and taking immediate steps 'to secure as early as practicable that all
public wells, dharmashalas, roads, schools, crematoriums, burning ghats and all public temples be declared open to the Depressed
Classes, provided that no compulsion or force shall be used and that only peaceful
persuasion shall be adopted towards this end'."

But in the statement issued by Mr. G. D. Birla
and Mr. A. V. Thakkar on the 3rd November, two months after its inauguration it was
stated:

"The League believes that reasonable
persons among the Sanatanists are not much against the removal of Untouchability as such,
as they are against inter-caste dinners and marriages. Since it is not the ambition of the
League to undertake reforms beyond its own scope, it is desirable to make it clear that
while the League will work by persuasion among the caste Hindus to remove every vestige of
Untouchability, the main line of work will be constructive, such as the uplift of
Depressed Classes educationally, economically and socially, which itself will go a great
way to remove untouchability. With such a work even a staunch Sanatanist
can have nothing but sympathy. And it is for such work mainly that the League has been
established. Social reforms like the abolition of the caste system and inter-dinning are kept outside the scope of the League."
These aims and objects are described in one of the Annual Reports of the Sangh. It says:[f77]

" According
to its constitution the aim and object of the Society is the abolition of untouchability
by reason of birth and the acquisition of equal rights of access of public temples, wells,
schools and other public institutions for Harijans as
enjoyed by other Hindus.

The achievement of this object has led the
Society to undertake work of a two-fold kind. First, the Society has to bring about such a
radical change in the sentiments and opinions of Caste Hindus that they may willingly, as
a matter of course, allow the enjoyment of all civic rights to Harijans. Secondly, the
society has to put forth its efforts and devote its funds for the educational, economic
and social uplift of Harijans."

The work done and the aims formulated when put
side by side raise two questions. Firstly is this record something of which the Sangh can
be proud of? Secondly is its work consistent with the aims of the Sangh? The record is
very poor. It is much cry and little wool. Certainly as compared with the record of work
done by the Christian Missions with which the Sangh competes, it is not a record of which
the Sangh can be proud of. But this is a mere matter for sorrow and nothing more. The
second question is fundamental and therefore one for anxious consideration. It is well
that the Sangh undertakes to labour in the interests of the Untouchables. But its labours
must be so planned that out of it will come the destruction of untouchability.

Examined in the light of this consideration
what is one to say of the work that is being done by the Sangh?The Sangh is openly and without abashment
supporting separate schools, separate hostels, separate dispensaries, and separate wells for the Untouchables. I should have
thought that that was the surest way of perpetuating untouchability. It is surprising that
Mr. Gandhi who threatened to fast unto death against separate electorates on the ground
that it involved segregation of the untouchables should himself sanction a line of
activity which perpetuates this segregation. In undertaking to render this social service
to the Untouchables, Mr. Gandhi and his Sangh should have forgotten what the Untouchables
want. What the Untouchables want is not education, but the right to be admitted to common
schools. The Untouchables do not want medical aid; what they want is the right to be
admitted to the general dispensary on equal terms. The Untouchable does not want water.
What he wants is the right to draw water from a common well. The Untouchables do not want
their suffering to be relieved. They want their personality to be respected and their
stigma removed. Once their stigma is removed their sufferings will go. This the Harijan
Sevak Sangh does not seem to have realized. The Sangh is said to be the friend of the
Untouchables and the orthodox Hindu the enemy of the Untouchables. One fails to understand
what the friend has done which the enemy would not do. The orthodox Hindu insists that the
Untouchables shall have separate schools, separate dispensaries and separate wells, the Sangh saysThy will shall be done. Except the fact the
orthodox Hindu believes in untouchability and Harijan Sevak Sangh does not, what is the
difference in practice between the friend and the foe? Under both, the untouchable is
condemned to separate schools, separate hostels and separate wells. If this is so, it is difficult to
understand why

Mr. Gandhi and the Harijan Sevak Sangh should
pick up a quarrel with the orthodox Hindu if he and his Sangh are not prepared to force
the issue. Whether the Hindu Shastras recognize untouchability or not is only an academic
quarrel between Mr. Gandhi and the orthodox Hindu. It can do no practical good. On the
contrary I am prepared to say that it had done positive harm to the Untouchables. In the
first place it has created enmity between the Untouchables and the orthodox Hindus. Before
Gandhi picked up this needless quarrel the relations between the Untouchables and the
Hindus were non-social. The quarrel has made them anti-social. Secondly if there was no
such quarrel, if instead of untouchability being made the issuewhich Mr. Gandhi does
not intend to fight it outan appeal was made to the orthodox Hindu to remove the
suffering of the Untouchables, many an orthodox Hindu I know would have come forward to
help to remove the suffering. Mr. Gandhi has reaped the glory for having established the
Sangh. But the Sangh has neither sought to remove untouchability nor has it helped to
alleviate the sufferings of the Untouchables.

Why has the Sangh failed ? My answer is quite
definite. I say the Sangh has failed because of its wrong politics.

It has often been said that the Harijan Sevak
Sangh is a political organization. Mr. Gandhi has always resented such an allegation and
repudiated it as being false. The General Secretary of the Sangh has also protested
against it. To use his own words "the Sangh, though a sequel of a Political Pact, has
no politics ".

I do not see any reason for the resentment of
Mr. Gandhi nor for the protests of his Secretary. I wish very much that the Sangh was a
political organization. The untouchables have obtained a share of political power. But
power which is not conscious of itself is no power. Again power which is not organized is
no power. The Harijan Sevak Sangh would have been of great use if it had helped the
Untouchables to organize independent political parties to fight the elections and make
their political power effective. Nor can I accept the statement of Mr. Gandhi and his
Secretary that the Sangh has no politics. On the contrary I insist that not only the Sangh
has a definite line of politics and that that line of politics is wrong because it is
prejudicial to the cause of the Untouchables.

Since Mr. Gandhi does not admit that the Sangh
has politics, one must go to circumstances for proof. Circumstantial proof is always
better than oral testimony because as is well said man may lie but circumstances cannot.
In this connection I want to rely upon a clause in the constitution of the Sangh as a
piece of evidence in support of my contention. The clause relates to the means to be
adopted by the Sangh for removing untouchability and for
securing equal rights to the Untouchables along with the Caste Hindus. The clause reads as
follows:

"That no compulsion is to be used for
securing rights, but that peaceful persuation is to be
adopted as the only means." This is a basic
principle of the Sangh. It has struck me as strange and I am
sure it will strike all others as strange. I want to ask the questionWhy has the
Sangh limited itself to peaceful persuation of the caste Hindus as the one and the only
means of removing Untouchability ?

Most social reformers, whether religious or
rational, seem to imagine that men of power will immediately check their pretentions and
their exactions as soon as they have been told that their actions and attitudes are
anti-social. But as Prof. Neibhur points out [f78] what these reformers overlook is an understanding of the
brutal character of the behaviour of all human groups and the power of self interest and
collective egoism which dominate all group relations. They also forget the fact that
races, nations and classes are less moral than individuals which compose them and that
justice between groups can therefore not be achieved purely by educational means. If
conscience and reason can be insinuated into the resulting struggle they can only qualify,
never abolish, the injustice If injustice
is to be abolished it must be resisted and when injustice proceeds from collective power,
whether in the form of imperialism or class domination, it must be challenged bypower. A class entrenched behind its
established power can never be dislodged unless power is raised against it. That is the
only way of stopping the exploitation of the weak by strong.

Why has Mr. Gandhi and the Harijan SevakSangh limited
their means of resistance to the Caste Hindu domination to peaceful persuation? Why do
they not resist the injustice of the Caste Hindus by direct action? I can understand that
in organising resistance to injustice, the problem is to find forms of resistance which
will not destroy the meagre resources for rational and moral action which groups do
possess. But there can be no difficulty on that account. Satyagraha or passive resistance
has been found by Mr. Gandhi as a form of resistance which is morally beyond cavil. Why
does not Mr. Gandhi ask the Sangh to launch Satyagraha by the Untouchables against the
Caste Hindus for the abolition of the injustice against the Untouchables. He asked the
people of India to offer Satyagraha against British Imperialism. Why does he not want to
use the same means against the caste Hindus in the interests of the Untouchables ?

What is the answer of Mr. Gandhi to this
question ? The only answer I can see is that it comes in the way of his politics. Mr. Gandhi must remain at the head of
the nation. I wonder if life would be worthwhile to him if for some reason he ceased to be
at the head of the nation. He is, I think, the most ambitious politician. I know, he
regards as his rivials those whom he calls as friends. To be
at the head of the nation means that he must preserve the integrity of the Congress. The
Congress is ninety nine per cent composed of Hindus. How can Gandhi succeed in maintaining
the integrity of the Congress if he were to direct the Sangh to carry on Satyagraha
against the Hindus for the sake of the Untouchables. The Hindus would leave the Congress
and the Congress would disrupt. This is detrimental to the interests of Mr. Gandhi . This
is the explanation why Mr. Gandhi and the Sangh have adopted peaceful persuation as the
only means of removing untouchability. It is a means which is least likely to hurt the
Hindus and the Congress. Not only in big matters but even in small matters the Sangh is
careful to see that the Hindus are not hurt or annoyed. I am told that in distributing
scholarships for instance the Sangh makes inquiries into the political affiliations of the
applicant and if it is found that the applicant belongs to a community which is against
the Congress or the Hindus, he gets no aid from the funds of the Sangh.

I wonder if any one will have any doubts left
that Mr. Gandhi and the Sangh in limiting themselves to peaceful persuations were
controlled by political considerations of not annoying the Hindus and disrupting the
Congress. This is what I meant when I said that the Sangha's politics and that its failure
is due to wrong politics. I am sure I am using mild language when I describe it as wrong
politics. It is treachery if the surrender of the interests of his ward by his guardian
can be described as treachery.

Mr. Gandhi is often compared with Jesus Christ
both by his Indian and European friends. What may be the justification for so strange a
comparison? In one thing I see a complete contrast between the two. Both Jesus and Gandhi
claimed to serve the lowly. This befriending attitude of both was resented by the upper
classes. How did the two react? When Jesus was taunted by the Pharasees he retorted by
saying" They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are
sick ". How sharp is the contrast between this attitude of Jesus and that of Mr.
Gandhi. Jesus did not worry about those who were 'whole'. Gandhi is devoted to those who
are 'whole' and who aresinning at the
cost of those who are sick and who are sinned against. Gandhi is no physician to the
untouchables. At best a sympathiser and nothing more.

Even as a sympathizer of the Untouchables his
sympathy for them is limited by two considerations. It is limited by his social aims.
Secondly it is also limited by his politics. Lest this statement should be doubted, I wish
to give two instances, one of each which have occurred recently. They have occurred not
far from Shegaon in Central provinces where Mr. Gandhi resides.

As an instance of the first I refer to what is
known in India as the Khare episode. In 1938 last there was a ministerial crisis in the
Central Provinces where the ministry was a Congress Ministry. The Prime Minister Dr. Khare
fell out with his colleagues. As Prime Minister he demanded the resignation of other
ministers which they were not prepared to give without the consent of the Congress
Parliamentary Board. But Dr. Khare forced them to give their resignations which they
ultimately did. Thereupon Dr. Khare formed another Congress cabinet and filled the
ministerial offices with men of his choice. In his new cabinet Dr. Khare included an
untouchable as a minister. Dr. Khare's conduct in dissolving the old cabinet and forming a
new one without consulting the Congress Parliamentary Board came up for investigation
before the Congress Working Committee. Dr. Khare was found guilty of breach of party
discipline and was deposed from his primiership. One of the accusations levelled against
Dr. Khare by Mr. Gandhi was that he included an untouchable in his new Ministry. The
following is the full text of what Mr. Gandhi said to Dr. Khare on this point and reduced
to writing by Dr. Khare for my sake:

"Mahatmaji took me to task for including a Harijan in my second
cabinet. I retorted by saying that it was a Congress programme of uplift of Harijans for
which Mahatmaji fasted unto death and that I did what I could in furtherance of that
programme when opportunity offered itself and I think I have done nothing wrong in doing
so. Thereupon Mahatmaji charged me of doing this for my selfish ambition. I repudiated
this charge saying that any selfish motive is disproved by my resignation. Then Mahatmaji
said that by my action I have thrown an apple of discord among the members of that simple
community and have rendered disservice to the Congress cause by throwing this temptation
in their way.'[f79]

That this is true and that Gandhi objected to
the untouchable being included in the Cabinet is evidenced by the fact that when a new
Congress Ministry was formed in Central Provinces this untouchable who functioned as a
minister for a day was excluded. He should have been included as a matter of form, at
least to keep up appearances. That he was not, shows that Gandhi was opposed to his
inclusion on principle.

This is baffling because the Untouchable member
of the Central Provinces Assembly who was chosen by Dr. Khare for ministership is a
graduate, is a Congressman and is a strong party-man. Why should Mr. Gandhi have any
objection to the inclusion of such a person in the Congress Cabinet. As a matter of fact
if Mr. Gandhi was genuine in his professions regarding the untouchables he should have
instructed all Congress Prime Ministers to include at least one untouchable in their
Cabinets, if for nothing else, at least for its psychological effect upon the Untouchables
and upon the Hindus. He should have done this irrespective of the party affiliations.
Gandhi is not averse to congress making coalitions with other non-congress parties in
provinces where it is not in a majority in order to secure offices. In such coalitions he
has allowed Congress to include non-congressmen as ministers in their cabinets. If Gandhi
can allow the congress to do this without losing its caste and its colour why Gandhi did
not instruct the Congress Prime Ministers to include untouchables in the Congress
Ministries if he wanted that when he talks about his love for the Untouchables he should
be believed. But the case in the Central Provinces stand on a different footing. Here the
Untouchable who was taken as a minister was a Congressman and a graduate. There could be
no objection on the ground of his want of qualification or want of political faith. Why
did Mr. Gandhi object to his inclusion? A crowd of Untouchables went to Shegaon to Mr.
Gandhi for an explanation. Anticipating this Mr. Gandhi had started observing silence, so
that no explanation could be had. Then the untouchables started Satyagraha against Mr.
Gandhi for not including an Untouchable in the Central Provinces Congress Cabinet. To
escape that embarassment Mr. Gandhi left Shegaon and went on a tour to the North Western
Frontier Provinces for teaching non-violence to the Pathans. I am sure Gandhi's silence on
this occasion was not to commune with God. It was taken on as a convenient excuse for not
being driven under the fire of cross examination to disclose his inner-most thoughts about
the Untouchables. In any case we have no answer to this question from Mr. Gandhi. To my
mind there can be only one answer and that even if Gandhi had opened his mouth he could
give no better. That answer is that Mr. Gandhi's ideal for the untouchable is a very low
ideal and that all that he cares for is that the untouchable should be touched and that if
he is touched without anybody taking a bath nothing further need be done about them. If
Gandhi had tried and failed he would have been excused. But how can he be excused for
entertaining so low an aim? Not failure but low aim is a crime.

As an instance of the second I refer to what is
known as the Bachuma incident. If the first instance is baffling this second is gruesome.
How gruesome it is can be seen from the brief summary of fact which I am giving. Bachuma,
a small girl, 12 years old and belonged to an untouchable family which was living in Wardha (This name is inserted as it was not mentioned
in the MS.Ed.). One evening she was decoyed into the house of a Mahomedan who
was the Sub-Inspector of Police. She was kept in his house and during the night this small
child was raped by three Mahomedans, one was the
Superintendent of Police himself, second a Sub-Inspector of Education and third a Lawyer.
The three Mahomedans were tried in a Court of Law and two of them were sentenced to two
years rigorous imprisonment and the lawyer was acquitted as the girl was not able to
identify him. The two who were convicted appealed to the High Court but the High Court
rejected their appeals and confirmed their convictions and sentences. From gaol they sent
to the Governor-in-Council petitions for mercy. But they
were also rejected. This happened before the Congress came into office. After the Congress
came into office they submitted fresh applications for mercy to the Minister-in-charge.
TheMinister-in-charge, who was also a
Mahomedan thought that there was nothing wrong in a Mahomedan committing rape on an
untouchable girl and decided to set the culprits free. He granted the application of
onethat of the Inspector of Education who is now a free man and is employed on a big
job in the Education Department of a Mahomedan State. He was to release the other culprit
also but in the meantime the agitation against him was so great that he had to resign his office. Every body expressed his resentment
against the shameless act of the Minister but Mr. Gandhi has
kept mum. So far he has not uttered a word of condemnation against this Minister. On the
contrary he is even now engaged in the confabulations that are going on over the question
of the reinstatement of this dismissed minister in his office which is still kept vacant.
One likes to ask if Gandhi would have remained so silent and
so unmoved if the little girl Bachuma who was raped by the three Mahomedans instead of
being the daughter of an Untouchable had been Mr. Gandhi's
own daughter. Why is Gandhi not able to make Bachuma's case
his daughter's case? There are two answers. One is that Mr. Gandhi is not an untouchable.
One must be born to it. Secondly Mr. Gandhi feels that by condemning the Muslim Minister
for the sake of Bachuma he might destroy Hindu-Moslem Unity the maintenance of which is a
fundamental creed of Congress politics. Does this now show that Mr. Gandhi's sympathies
for the Untouchables are limited by his politics ?

What good is a man who is not even free to
sympathize according to his conscience. Ill

And now the temple entry. This is advertized as
another of Mr. Gandhi's boons to the Untouchables.

This question of temple entry is the outcome of
the resolution passed at the public meeting of the Hindus held on 25th September 1932
which also was the originating cause which gave birth to the Harijan Sevak Sangh. This
resolution mentioned some of the liabilities of the Hindus towards the Untouchables. This
list included the removal of the bar against the Untouchables in respect of admissions to
Hindu temples.

Although the promise of temple entry was there
in the Resolution the Untouchables did not insist upon its being fulfilled forthwith. The
untouchables, at any rate a vast majority of them have not been keen for temple entry.
When asked by Mr. Gandhi what I thought about temple entry I gave my opinion on it in the
form of a statement which was issued to the Press on February 10 [f80], 1933, and which is reproduced below:

STATEMENT ON TEMPLE ENTRY

Although the controversy regarding the question
of temple entry is confined to the Sanatanists and Mahatma Gandhi, the Depressed Classes
have undoubtedly a very important part to play in it, in so far as their position is bound
to weigh the scales one way or the other, when the issue comes for final settlement. It
is, therefore necessary, that their view point should be defined and stated so as to leave
no ambiguity about it.

To the Temple Entry Bill of Mr. Ranga lyer as
now drafted, the Depressed Classes cannot possibly give their support. The principle of
the Bill is that if a majority of Municipal and Local Board voters in the vicinity of any
particular temple on a Referendum decide by a majority that the Depressed Classes shall be
allowed to enter the temple, the Trustees or the Manager of that temple shall give effect
to that decision. The principle is an ordinary principle of majority rule and there is
nothing radical or revolutionary about the Bill and if the Sanatanists were a wise lot,
they would accept it without demur.

The reasons why the Depressed Classes cannot
support a Bill based upon this principle are two. One reason is that the Bill cannot
hasten the day of Temple Entry for the Depressed Classes any nearer than would otherwise
be the case. It is true that under the Bill the minority will not have the right to obtain
an injunction against the Trustee or the Manager who throws open the temple to the
Depressed Classes in accordance with the decision of the majority. But before one can draw
any satisfaction from this clause and congratulate the author of the Bill, one must first
of all feel assured that when the question is put to the vote there will be a majority in
favour of the Temple Entry. If one is not suffering from illusions of any kind, one must
accept that the hope of a majority voting in favour of Temple Entry will be rarely
realised, if at all. Without doubt the majority is definitely opposed to daya fact
which is conceded by the Author of the Bill himself in his correspondence with the
Shankaracharya. What is there in the situation as created after the passing of the Bill,
which can lead one to hope that the majority will act differently? I find nothing. I
shall, no doubt, be reminded of the results of the Referendum with regard to the Guruvayur
Temple. But I refuse to accept a referendum so overweighed as it was by the Life of
Mahatma Gandhi as the normal

result. In any such calculations, the life of
the Mahatma must necessarily be deducted. Secondly, the Bill does not regard
untouchability in temples as a sinful custom. It regards untouchability merely as a social
evil not necessarily worse than social evils of other sorts. For, it does not declare
untouchability as such to be illegal. Its binding force is taken away only if a majority
decides to do so. Sin and immorality cannot become tolerable because a majority is
addicted to them or because the majority chooses to practice them. If untouchability is a
sinful and an immoral custom, then in the view of the Depressed Classes it must be
destroyed without any hesitation, even if it was acceptable to the majority. This is the
way in which all customs are dealt with by Courts of Law, if they find them to be immoral
and against public policy. This is exactly what the Bill does not do. The author of the
Bill takes no more serious view of the custom of untouchability than does the temperance
reformer of the habit of drinking. Indeed, so much is he impressed by the assumed
similarity between the two that the method he has adopted is a method which is advocated
by temperance reformers to eradicate the evil habit of drinking, namely by local option.
One cannot feel much grateful to a friend of the Depressed Classes who holds
untouchability to be no worse than drinking. If Mr. Ranga
lyer had not forgotten that only a few months ago Mahatma Gandhi had prepared himself to
fast unto death if untouchability was not removed, he would have taken a more serious view
of this curse and proposed a most thorough-going reform to ensure its removal lock, stock
and barrel. Whatever its shortcomings may be from the standpoint of efficacy, the least
that the Depressed Classes could expect is for the Bill to recognise the principle that
untouchability is a sin. I really cannot understand how the Bill satisfies Mahatma Gandhi
who has been insisting that untouchability is a sin. It certainly does not satisfy the
Depressed Classes. The question whether this particular Bill is good or bad, sufficient or
insufficient, is a subsidiary question. The main question is; do the Depressed Classes
desire Temple Entry or do they not ? This main question is being viewed by the Depressed
Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it,
the Depressed Classes think that the surest way for their elevation lies in higher
education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well
placed in the scale of social life they would become respectable and once they become
respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change,
and even if this did not happen it can do no injury to their material interest. Proceeding
on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their resources in such
an empty thing as Temple Entry. There is also another reason why they do not care to fight
for it. That argument is the argument of ' self respect '. Not very long ago there used to
be boards in club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which
said 'Dogs and Indians not allowed". The
Temples of the Hindus carry similar boards today, the only difference is that the boards
on the Hindu temples practically say " All
Hindus and all animals including dogs are admitted only Untouchables not admitted".
The situation in both cases is on a parity. But the Hindus never begged for admission in
those places from which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them. Why should an
untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by the arrogance
of the Hindus ? This is the reasoning of the Depressed Class
man who is interested in his material welfare. He is prepared to say to the Hindus, "
To open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider, and not for me to
agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human
personality, open your temples and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than be
gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself, for I don't care to come."

" I found it
necessary to put the argument in this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men
like Pandit MadanMohan Malaviya
of their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward expectantly
for their patronage. The second point of view is the spiritual one. As religiously minded
people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not? That is the question.
From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to temple entry as they would
be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But their final answer must
depend upon the reply which MahatmaGandhi and the Hindus give to the following question:

What is the drive behind this offer of temple
entry? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the
Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold ? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first
step, what is the ultimate goal ? Temple entry as a final goal the Depressed Classes can
never support. Indeed they will not only reject it, but they would then regard themselves
as rejected by Hindu Society and free to find their own destiny elsewhere. On the other
hand, if it is only to be a first step in the direction, they may be inclined to support
it. The position would then be analogous to what is happening in the politics of India
today. All Indians have claimed Dominion Status for India. The actual constitution will
fall short of Dominion Status and many Indians will accept it. Why? The answer is that as
the goal is defined, it does not matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in
one jump. But if the British had not accepted the goal of Dominion Status, no one would
have accepted the partial reforms which many are now prepared to accept. In the same way
if Mahatma Gandhi and the reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they set before
themselves is for the advancement of the social status of the Depressed Classes in the
Hindu fold, it would be easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards
temple entry. The goal of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the
information and consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a
religion, which will give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding,
I would like to elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils which
are the results of secular causes and social evils which are founded upon the doctrines of
religion. Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But
nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be
justified on the ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow
inequities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to
tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequities. If
the Hindu religion is to be their religion then it must become a religion of Social
Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a
provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of Equality of social
status. All that it can do is to recognise them as nationals and not aliens, if I may use
these terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they
would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal without being above or
below any one else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the
principle of equality of social status; on the other hand fosters inequality by insisting
upon grading people as Brahmins, Kashatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras which now stand towards
one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt. If the Hindu
religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide
temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of
Chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the caste
system and untouchability which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is done not only
will the Depressed Classes reject temple entry, they will also reject the Hindu faith.
Chaturvarna and the caste system are incompitable with the self respect of the Depressed
Classes. So long it continues to be the cardinal doctrine, the Depressed Classes must
continue to be looked upon as low. For the Depressed Classes to say that they are Hindus
is to admit their inferiority of status by their own mouth. They can call themselves as
Hindus only when the theory of Chaturvarna and caste system is abandoned and expunged from
the Shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will
they show the courage to work for it ? I shall look forward
to their pronouncements on this issue as I have stated it with great concern. But whether
Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not,
let it be known once for all that nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes
and make them accept temple entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it, is to
temporize with evil and barter away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in
them.

There is however one argument which Mahatma
Gandhi and the reforming Hindus may advance against the position I have taken. They may
say, "acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple entry now, will not prevent them
from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and caste ". If that is their goal, I like to meet this argument
right at this stage with a view to clinch the issue and clear the road for future
developments. My reply is that it is true that my right to agitate for the abolition of
Chaturvarna and caste system will not be lost, if I accept Temple Entry now. But the
question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be at the time when the question is put. If
he will be in the camp of my opponents I must tell him that I cannot be in his camp now.
If he will be in my camp, he ought to be in it now".

" When a Depressed Classes member is
permitted to enter into the Caste Hindu temples he would not be taken into any one of the
four castes, but treated as man of fifth or the last or the lowest caste, a stigma worse
than the one to be called an untouchable. At the same time he would be subjected to so
many caste restrictions and humiliations. The Depressed Classes shun the one who enters
like that and exclude him as Casteman. The crores of Depressed Classes would not submit to
caste restrictions. They will be divided into sections if they do.

Temple entry cannot be forced by law. The
village castemen openly or indirectly defy the law. To the village Depressed Classman it
would be like a scrap of paper on which word "sugar" was written and placed in
his hands for him to taste.

The above facts are placed before the public in time to save confusion and
disturbance in the country."

But Mr. Gandhi felt otherwise that securing
temple entry to the untouchables was a liability of the Hindus which ought to be
liquidated first. Accordingly immediately after the Poona Pact he started a campaign among
the Hindus for opening the doors of their temples to the Untouchables.

How far has Mr. Gandhi succeeded in this matter
is a question that may legitimately be asked. But it is difficult to know the truth. As a
result of the fast, many temples were reported to have been thrown open by the Hindus to
the Untouchables. How far this was true and how far it is a part of lying propaganda which
the Congressman is so good at it is difficult to say. That many of the temples that were
opened as a sequel to the fast were purified and closed to the Untouchables is beyond
dispute. Again the opening of a temple may be quite a meaningless act. There are hundreds
and thousands of temples in which there is no worship. They are occupied by only donkies.
Instances of such temples can be seen at places of pilgrimage such as Nasik and Wai. If
such a temple is declared to be open it is not only a meaningless act but it is an insult
to the Untouchables. Again a temple may be opened to the Untouchable. But if it is
abandoned by the Caste Hindus as a place of worship it cannot be said that it is open in
the sense that they are welcomed to it by the Hindus. There is yet another possibility
which must be taken into account in arriving at the truth.

A temple may be open to the untouchables in the
same sense as the Ritz Hotel in London is open to all. We however know that the Ritz Hotel
is not in fact open to all. It is open only to those who can afford. In the same way a
temple may be open to the untouchables yet in fact it is open only to those untouchables
who can afford to enter. If the cost of temple entry is assault or social boycott then the
cost will be prohibitive and the temple though nominally open is really closed. Assault
and social boycott are a matter of course with the Hindus and it would not be too much to
assume that in some case the Hindus would resort to such means to prohibit the
Untouchables who dare to enter a temple which is declared to be open to them. If the case
is one like this then it is a fraud.

Which of the two classes of cases are more
numerous, it is difficult to say accurately. But a guess may be made on the basis of
certain facts. There are two classes of Hindus now in India  the orthodox Hindus who
care more for religion than for politics and the Congress Hindus who care more for
politics and less for religion. The former who have no political ends to subserve can be
honest i.e. true to their convictions however wrong they may be. The latter who have to
serve political ends cannot always take an honest view but are prone to adopt dishonest
ways. The first method of abandonment though honest brings discredit upon the Hindu
community in the eyes of the world and is therefore politically unsuitable. The second
method of opening the temple nominally and closing it really by Hindus (This word is inserted by us against the blank
space of MS.Ed.) is politically highly advantageous. It has the merit of a
system which shows to the world that credit is opened and which clandestinely but without
the world knowing prevents its being drawn upon by the person in whose favour it is
declared to be opened. The Congress Hindus are more numerous than the orthodox Hindus.
That being the case I should think that the second classes of cases must be more numerous
than the first.

That genuine cases of opening of temples are
very few and that most of the published reports of opening of temples is just false
propaganda is clear from the fate of the Temple Entry Bill of Mr. Rangalyer brought by him in the
Central Legislature in 1934. Of that Bill I will speak of at a later occasion.

With this I would have closed this discussion
of the subject. But Mr. Gandhi insists that a spiritual awakening has taken place among
the Hindus and relies upon the Temple Entry Proclamation of Travancore. I am therefore
obliged to deal with this claim.

The success of temple entry cannot be
determined by the number of temples opened. It can be determied only by reference to the
motive with which it is done. Is the motive spiritual? That can be the only test.

Now I say that temple entry is not a spiritual
act. It is a political manouver.

Is Mr. Gandhi acting from spiritual motive? In
appealing to the Hindus Mr. Gandhi said:

"I have adressed this appeal to you, which
proceeds out of my soul's agony. I ask you to share that agony and shame with me and
cooperate with me, for I have no other end to serve than to see Sanatana Dharma revivified and lived in its reality
in the lives of millions who at present seem to me to deny it. " This soul's agony
was born after the Poona Pact. What did Mr. Gandhi think of the Problem of Temple Entry
before the Poona Pact? Before the Poona Pact Mr. Gandhi was of different opinion. That
opinion was expressed not very long before the Poona Pact and not long before this appeal
was addressed to the Hindus from which I have....... It was
expressed in Gandhi Shikshan, Vol. II, p. 132. Mr. Gandhi then held the opinion that
separate temples should be built for the use of Untouchables.

" How is it possible that the Antyajas
(Untouchables) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law
of caste and ashram has the chief place in Hindu Religion, to say that every Hindu can
enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today."

It is obvious that Temple Entry is not original
with him and therefore not spiritual. The agony is caused by the grave and sudden
provocation brought about by the demand of the untouchables for separate electorates. Mr.
Gandhi was afraid of the principle underlying separate electorates. He felt that this
principle may be extended and may ultimately lead to separation and cessation of the
Untouchables from the Hindu fold. It was to counter this move that he changed his opinion
and started the temple entry move. The motive of Mr. Gandhi is political and there is
nothing spiritual about it.

I do not wish this conclusion to rest merely
upon this evidence of change of front on the part of Mr. Gandhi. There is abundance of
other evidence in support of it.

I will refer first to the Guruvayur Temple
Satyagraha which was started by a caste Hindu by name Kellappan to secure entry into the
Guruvayur Temple for the Untouchables. A few facts regarding this episode may be
interesting.

The point to note is the attitude that Mr. Gandhi finally adopted in this matter when he was challenged by
the leaders of the orthodox Hindus. Mr. Gandhi became ready for a compromise with the
orthodox. The terms of the compromise were as follows. I give them in Mr. Gandhi's own words as reported in the papers.[f82]

" During certain hours of the day the
Guruvayur Temple should be thrown open to the Harijans and other Hindus, who have no
objection to the presence of the Harijans and during certain other hours it should be
reserved for those, who have scruples against the entry of the Harijans. There should be
no difficulty whatsoever in the acceptance of this suggestion, seeing that in connection
with the Krithikai Ekadashi festival in Guruvayur, the Harijans are allowed to enter side
by side with the Hindus and then the temple or the idol undergoes purification."

Asked if his suggestion was that the temple
might undergo purification daily after the entry of the
Harijans, Mr. Gandhi replied:

"
Personally, I am opposed to purification at all. But if that would satisfy the conscience
of the objectors I would personally in this case, raise no objection to purification. If purification has any value, then there are so many
possibilities of daily defilement from a variety of causes referred to in various texts
that there should be a daily purification, whether the Harijans are allowed to enter or
not." This attitude is not spiritual. It is purely commercial. This is almost
admitted by Mr. Gandhi. Asked if the compromise suggested by him did not still maintain a
distinction between the Untouchables and the Caste Hindus Mr. Gandhi is reported to have
said:

"The Harijans' attitude should be this, 'if there is a person who objects to my presence, I would like
to respect his objection so long as he (the objector) does not deprive me of the right
that belongs to me and so long as I am permitted to have my legitimate share of the days
of offering worship side by side with those, who have no objection to my presence, I would
be satisfied'." I do not
know if any self respecting Untouchable would adopt this attitude of Mr. Gandhi. On these
terms even dogs and cats are admitted in all temples when there are no human beings
present in them. To divide the House of God in time or in space for worship for
reconciling the rival claims of two opposing classes is in itself a quaint or grotesque
idea. Mr. Gandhi evidently forgot that worshipping in the same temple is quite different
from worshipping in common. Temple entry if it is to be spiritual must mean the latter.
The former accepts that the presence of one class is repugnant to the other and proceeds
to reconcile the interests of the two. The latter presupposes that there is no repugnance
between the two classes and that they accept the common denominator of humanity as being
present in both.

This shows that Mr. Gandhi
is least motivated by spiritual considerations. He is in a hurry to bring the Untouchables
within the Hindu stables so as to prevent their running away.

Another piece of evidence which goes to
disprove Mr. Gandhi's claim that he is acting from spiritual
consideration is furnished by his conduct with reference to Mr. Rangalyer's'Temple Entry Bill'. It shows
that the soul's agony is only a picturesque phrase and not a fact.

Some history of this Bill is necessary to understand the tragedy which
ultimately befell Mr. Ranga lyer the author of it.

Since the new constitution came into operation
two Acts have been passed in two Provinces by the Congress Governments. One in Bombay and
another in Madras. There is no substance in the Acts. They do not declare the Temples to
be open. They permit the Trustees of the Temples under their management if they desire and
as there is nothing to compel the Trustees to do so the Acts are just scraps of paper and
nothing more. But the Madras Act has a history which is somewhat puzzling. The Madras
Prime Minister who got the Act passed is Mr. Rajagopalachariar.
He occupies a very high place in the Congress, so high indeed that he is called Deputy Mahatma. If one can solve the puzzle the solution will reveal
the mind of the Author and therefore of Mr. Gandhi who is
the living spirit behind all this.

Let me turn to the Travancore
Temple Entry. The proclamation of 12th November 1936 issued by the Maharaja opening the
Temple open to the Untouchables is a gorgeous document. It reads as follows:

" Profoundly
convinced of the truth and validity of our religion, believing that it is based on divine
guidance and on all-comprehending toleration, knowing that in its practice it has
throughout the centuries adapted itself to the need of the changing times, solicitous that
none of our Hindu subjects should, by reason of birth, caste or community, be denied the
consolation and solace of the Hindu faith, we have decided and hereby declare, ordain and
command that, subject to such rules and conditions as may be laid down and imposed by us
for preserving their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and observances,
there should henceforth be no restriction placed on any Hindu by birth or religion on
entering or worshipping at temples controlled by us and our Government." What
spirituality underlies this proclamation?

The proclamation was issued by the Maharaja of Travancore in his name. But the real active force behind the
scene was the Prime Minister Sir C. P. Ramaswamilyer. It is his motives
that we must understand. In 1933 Sir C. P. R. lyer was also
the Prime Minister of Travancore. In 1933 Mr. Gandhi was fighting to get the Guruvayur Temple
opened to all Untouchables. Among the many who took part in the controversy over the issue
of Temple entry was Sir C. P. Ramaswami lyer. No body seems now to remember this fact. But
it is important to recall it because it helps us to understand the motives which prompted
him to press the Maharaja to issue this proclamation. What attitude did Sir C. P. Ramawasmi lyer have regarding this issue in 1933? It will be
clear from the following statement which he issued to the press[f83]:

" Personally
I do not observe caste rules. I realise there are strong, though not very articulate,
feelings in this matter in the minds of men who believe that the present system of temple
worship and its details are based on divine ordinances. The problem can be permanently
solved only by a process of mutual adjustment and by the awakening of religious and social
leaders of Hindu society to the realities of the present situation and to the need for
preserving the solidarity of the Hindu community.

" Shock
tactics will not answer the purpose and direct action will be even more fatal in this
sphere than in the political. I have the misfortune to differ from Mr. Gandhi when he says
that the problem of temple entry can be divorced from such topics as interdining and I
agree with Dr. Ambedkar that the social and economic uplift
of the Depressed Classes should be our immediate and urgent programme."

This statement shows that in 1933 spiritual
considerations did not move Sir C. P. Ramaswami lyer. Spiritual considerations have become
operative after 1933. Is there any particular reason why these spiritual considerations
should have been thought of in 1936?

This qustion can
be answered only if one bears in mind the fact that in 1936 there was held in Travancore a
Conference of the Yezawa Community to consider the issue of
conversion which was raised by me at Yeola in 1935. The Yezawas are an untouchable community spread over Malabar. It is an educated community and economically quite
strong. It is also a vocal community and has been carrying on agitation in the state for
social, religious and political rights. The Yezawas form a very large community. The
cessation of so large a community would be a deathknell to
the Hindus and the Conference had made the danger real as well as immediate. It was this
which brought about a change in the attitude of Sir C. P. Ramaswamilyer. The spiritual
considerations are just an excuse. They did not form the motives.

How far did this Proclamation change facts and
how far it has remained a show? It is not possible to get real facts as they exist in Travancore. In the course of the discussion on the Malabar Temple Entry Bill
in the Madras Legislative Assembly certain facts relating to Travancore were mentioned by
Sir T.Pannirselvam, which if true would show that the whole thing is hollow. Sir
T. Pannirselvam said:

" One of the
arguments advanced by the Premier in support of the measure was that temples in Travancore
had been thrown open to the " Untouchables ". A Maharaja vested with autocratic powers did so by an
order. But how was it working there ? From representations
received, he was led to believe that after the first flush of enthusiasm, Harijans had left off going to temples, and people who used to
worship previously before Harijans were allowed to enter the temples, had stopped
worshipping in temples. He would ask the Government to tell them if the measure was really
a success in Travancore."

On the third reading of the Bill, Sir T. Pannirselvam made a statement which must have come as a surprize to many. He said:

" He wanted
to know whether it was a fact that the private temples of the Senior Maharani were excluded from the proclamation. What was the
reason for it? Again during the celebration of the marriage of the daughter of the Senior
Maharani it was found necessary, so he was told, to perform purificatory ceremony of the
temple. If such a purification of temples took place, what happened to the
proclamation?"

These facts were not challenged by the Prime
Minister. Evidently they cannot be challenged. If they are incontrovertible then the less
said about the Malabar Temple Entry proclamation as a spiritual testament the better.

It would not be proper to close this discussion
without adverting to the fear which some Untouchables entertain regarding this Temple
entry movement. It is just a movement of social reform or is it a strategy ?

The special privileges which the Untouchables
have got in the matter of politics, in the matter of education, in the matter of services
are founded upon the fact that they are Untouchables. If they cease to be Untouchables
their claim to these special privileges could at once be challenged. If untouchability goes then they would be just poor and backward.
But as poor and backward they would not be entitled to any special privileges which they
have as untouchables. What is the plan of these protagonists of Temle Entry? Is it just to open temples or aim is ultimately to
take away the privileges ? This fear is lurking in the minds
of many a thinking Untouchables. That the fear is a real fear is clear from what is
happening in Travancore itself. A correspondent of mine who
represents the All Travancore PulayarCheramarAykia MahaSangham writes to me as follows in a letter, dated 24th
November 1938. I give below the full text of the letter sent by him to me.

I have unaffected pleasure to draw your
attention to the following facts for obtaining the valuable advice from you. Being the
leader of a Harijan Community of the Travancore State, I
think, it is my paramount duty to suggest you definitely all
the grievances that the Harijans of this state are enduring.

1. The Temple Entry Proclamation issued by the H.H. The Maharaja is indeed a
boon to Harijans; but the Harijans are enjoying all the other social disabilities except
the temple entry. The proclamation is a check to the further concessions to us. The
Government do not take any step for the amelioration of the Harijans.

2. Among 15 lakhs of Harijans, there are a few
graduates, half a dozen undergraduates and 50 school finals and more than two hundred
vernacular certificate holders. Though the Government have
appointed a Public Service Commission, appointments of the Harijans are very few. All the
appointments are given to Savarnas. If a Harijan is
appointed it will be for one week or two weeks. According to the rules of the recruitment
in Public Service the applicant is allowed to apply only after a year again, while a Savarna will be appointed for a year or more. When the list of
the appointments is brought before the assembly, the number of appointments will be equal
to the communal representation; but the duration of the post
of all the Harijans will be equal to one Savarna. This kind of fraud is associating with
the officials. Thus the public service is a common property
of the Savarnas. No Harijan is benefitted by it.

3. There was a proclamation from H.H. the Maharaja, a few years
ago that three acres of ground should be given to each Harijan to
live in; but the Officials are Savarnas who are always
unwilling to carry out the proclamation. Even though the Government is willing to grant
large extent of ground for pasturing near Towns not a piece of the ground is given to the Harijans. The Harijans are still
living in the compounds of the Savarnas and are undergoing manyfold
difficulties. Though large extents of ground lay in " Reserve ", the applications of the Harijans for granting grounds
are not at all regarded with importance or listen to. The most parts of the lands are
benefited by the Savarnas.

4. The Government nominates every year of the
election of members of the Assembly one member from each Harijan Community. Though they
are elected to present the grievances of the Harijans before the Assembly, they are found
to be the machinery of the Government viz., the toys of the Savarna officers, who are
benefited by them. Thus the grievances of the Harijans cannot be redressed any way.

5. All the Harijans of Travancore are labourers in the fields and compounds. They are
the servants of the Savarnas who behave them as beastsno body to look after or
protectionevery Harijan gets only 2 chs (one anna) as
the wage in the most parts of the State. The social disabilities are the same to them even
after the temple entry. The workers in the factories in various parts of the State of
Travancore and the Officers of the State are all Savarnas and they are at present
agitating for responsible Government. Now the Harijans are demanding jobs in Government
and in factories but the agitation in Travancore is a Savarna agitation by which the
Savarnas are making arrangements to get rid of Harijans in Public Service and factories.
They plead for higher salaries and more privileges. They pay the least care to the Harijan
labourers while the people of Travancore are maddened with the agitation of the workers in
the factories. The standard of salary of Harijan worker is very low while the standard of
a factory worker is thrice the former.

6. Due to starvation and proper means of
livelihood the heads of the children of Harijans are heated as a result of which they are
likely to fail in school. Before proclamation the duration of concession in high schools
was for 6 years, now, it has reduced to three years by which a good number of students
stopped their education after their failure.

7. There is a department for the Depressed
Classes and the head of which is Mr. C. 0. Damodaran (the protector of the Backward Communities). Though
every year a big amount is granted for the expenditure, at the end of the year, 2/3 of the
sum is lapsed by its sagacity. He is used to submit reports to the Government that there
is no way of spending the amount. 95 per cent of the sum allotted for the Depressed Class
is spent as the salary of the officials who are always Savarna
and 5 per cent is benefited. Now the Government is going to make some colonies in three
parts of Travancore. The officers are Savarnas. This scheme is, in my opinion, not a success for the
Government do not pay greater to it. I regret that Travancore Government spends one anna
for the Harijan cause, while Cochin State spends a rupee for
the same.

The majority of the subjects of Travancore are
now agitating strongly for Responsible Government under an organization "The State
Congress ". The leaders of this popular organization
belong to the four major communities of the State namely, the Nair,
Mohamedan, Christian and Ezhava community. The President
of the State Congress Mr. ThanuPillai
issued a statement in which he stressed that special concessions would be given to the
Depressed Class. All the leaders of the Depressed Class have been waiting for a time to
see the attitude of the State Congress. Now we come to understand that there is no reality
in the promises of these leaders.

Now I am sure that the leaders have neglected
the cause of the Depressed Class. The State Congress was started on the principles of
nationalism and now it has become an institution of communalism.
Communal spirit is now working among the leaders. In every public speech, statement or
article, the leaders mention only these four major communities, while they have no thought
on us. I fear, if this is the case of the leaders of the political agitation of
Travancore, the situation of the Depressed Class will be more deplorable when the
Responsible Government is achieved, for the entire possession of the Government will be
then within the clutches of the above mentioned communities
and the Depressed Classes' rights and privileges will be devoured by the former. In the
meetings of the working committee of the State Congress 2/3 of the time had devoted in
discussion concerning the strike of the Alleppey Coir
Factories; but nothing was mentioned in the meeting about the Harijan workers who are
undergoing manyfold difficulties. The workers in Factories
are Savarnas and the agitation for obtaining Responsible Government is a kind of anti Harijan movement. The motive of every leader of the State
Congress is to improve the situation (circumstance) of the Savarna. The leaders of the
major communities have some mercinary attitude who are going
to sacrifice the Depressed Class for their progress.

These are the conditions of the Depressed Class
of the State. What are the ways by which we have to establish our rights in the State? I
humbly request you to be good enough to render me your advice at this occasion. I am
awaiting for the reply. Excuse me for the trouble,

Yours faithfully,

Srinarayanswami."

If the plan of Temple Entry is ultimately to
deprive the Untouchables of their statutory rights then the movement is not only not
spiritual but it is positively mischievous and it would be the duty of all honest people
to warn the Untouchables, "Beware of Gandhi".

chapter 7

A WARNING TO THE UNTOUCHABLES

Revolt and rebellion against the Established
order is a natural part of the history of the poor in all countries of the world. A
student of their history cannot but be struck by the thought entertained by them, of the
way victory would come. In the theological age, the poor lived by the hope that spiritual
forces would ultimately make the meek inherit the earth. In the secular age, otherwise
called modern times, the poor live by the hope that the forces of historical materialism
will automatically rob the strong of their strength and make the weak take their place.

In the light of this psychology, when one begins to think of the Untouchables
in their role of rebels against the Hindu Social Order one feels like congratulating them
on their realization that neither spiritual forces nor historical forces are going to
bring the millennium. They know full well that if the Hindu Social Order is to fall to the
ground, it can happen only under two conditions. Firstly, the social order must be
subjected to constant fire. Secondly, they can't subject it to constant fire unless they
are independent of the Hindus in thought and in action. That is why the Untouchables are
insistent upon separate electorates and separate settlements.

The Hindus on the other hand are telling the
Untouchables to depend upon the Hindus for their emancipation. The Untouchables are told
that the general spread of education will make the Hindus act in a rational manner. The
Untouchables are told that the constant preaching of reformers against Untouchability is
bound to bring abouta moral transformation
of the Hindus and the quickening of his conscience. The Untouchables should therefore rely
on the good will and sense of duty of the Hindus. No Untouchable believes in this facile
proposition. If there are any who do, they are hypocrites who are prepared to agree to
whatever the Hindus have to say in order that by their grace they may be put in places
reserved for the Untouchables. They are a predatory band of Untouchables who are out to
feather their nests by any means open to them.

The Untouchables are not deceived by such false
propaganda and false hopes. It is therefore unnecessary to comment on it. At the same
time, the propaganda is so alluring that it may mislead the unwary Untouchables into being
ensnared by it. A warning to the Untouchables is therefore necessary.

Two agencies are generally relied upon by the
social idealists for producing social justice. One is reason, the other is religion.

The rationalist who uphold the mission of
reason believe that injustice could be eliminated by the increasing power of intelligence.
In the mediaeval age social injustice and superstition were intimately related to each
other. It was natural for the rationalists to believe that the elimination of superstition
must result in the abolition of injustice. This belief was encouraged by the results.
Today it has become the creed of the educationists, philosophers, psychologists and social
scientists who believe that universal education and the development of printing and press
would result in an ideal society, in which every individual would be so enlightened that
there would be no place for social injustice.

History, whether Indian or European, gives no
unqualified support to this dogma. In Europe, the old traditions and superstitions which
seemed to the eighteenth century to be the very root of injustice, have been eliminated.
Yet social injustice has been rampant and has been growing ever and anon. In India itself,
the whole Brahmin community is educated, man, woman and child. How many Brahmins are free
from their belief in untouchability? How many have come forward to undertake a crusade
against untouchability? How many are prepared to stand by the side of the Untouchables in
their fight against injustice? In short, how many are prepared to make the cause of the
Untouchables their own cause? The number will be appallingly small.

Why does reason fail to bring about social
justice? The answer is that reason works so long as it does not come into conflict with
one's vested interest. Where it comes into conflict with vested interests, it fails. Many
Hindus have a vested interest in untouchability. That, vested interest may take the shape
of feeling of social superiority or it may take the shape of economic exploitation such as
forced labour or cheap labour, the fact remains that Hindus have a vested interest in
untouchability. It is only natural that that vested interest should not yield to the
dictates of reason. The Untouchables should therefore know that there are limits to what
reason can do.

The religious moralists who believe in the
efficacy of religion urge that the moral insight which religion plants in man whereby it
makes him conscious of the sinfulness of his preoccupation with self and thereby of the
duty to do justice to his fellows. Nobody can deny that this is the function of religion
and to some extent religion may succeed in this mission. But here again there are limits
to what religion can do. Religion can help to produce justice within a community. Religion cannot produce justice
between communities. At any rate, religion has
failed to produce justice between Negroes and Whites, in the United States. It has failed
to produce justice between Germans and French and between them and the other nations. The
call of nation and the call of community has proved more powerful than the call of
religion for justice.

The Untouchables should bear in mind two
things. Firstly, that it is futile to expect the Hindu religion to perform the mission of
bringing about social justice. Such a task may be performed by Islam, Christianity, or
Buddhism. The Hindu religion is itself the embodiment of inequity and injustice to the
Untouchables. For it, to preach the gospel of justice is to go against its own being. To
hope for this is to hope for a miracle. Secondly, assuming that this was a task which
Hinduism was fitted to perform, it would be impossible for it to perform. The social
barrier between them and the Hindus is much greater than the barrier between the Hindus
and their men. Religion, however efficacious it may be within a community or a nation, is
quite powerless to break these barriers and (make)*[f84]them one whole.

Apart from these agencies of reason and
religion the Untouchables are asked to trust the enlightened self-interests of the Hindu
privileged classes and the fraternity of the Hindu proletarian.

As to the privileged classes it be wrong to depend upon for anything more
than their agreeing to be benevolent despots. They have their own class interests and they
cannot be expected to sacrifice them for general interests or universal values. On the
other hand, their constant endeavour is to identify their class interests with general
interests and to assume that their privileges are the just payments with which society
rewards specially useful and meritorious functions. They are a poor company to the
Untouchables as the Untouchables have found in their conflict with the Hindus.

For Untouchables to expect to gain help from
the Hindu proletariat is also a vain hope. The appeal of the Indian Communists to the
Untouchables for solidarity with the Hindu proletariat is no doubt based on the assumption
that the proletarian does not desire advantages for himself which he is not willing to
share with others. Is this true ? Even in Europe the proletarian are not a uniform class.
It is marked by class composition, the higher and the lower. This is reflected in their
attitudes towards social change, the higher are reformist and the lower are revolutionary.
The assumption therefore is riot true. So far as India is concerned it is positively
false. There is very little for a common front. Socially, there is bound to be antagonism
between them. Economically, there cannot be much room for alliance.

What must the Untouchables strive for? Two
things they must strive for is education and spread of knowledge. The power of the
privileged classes rests upon lies which are sedulously propagated among the masses. No
resistance to power is possible while the sanctioning lies, which justify that power are
accepted as valid. While the lie which is the first and the chief line of defence remains
unbroken there can be no revolt. Before any injustice, any abuse or oppression can be
resisted, the lie upon which it is founded must be unmasked, must be clearly recognized
for what it is. This can happen only with education.

The second thing they must strive for is power.
It must not be forgotten that there is a real conflict of interests between the Hindus and
the Untouchables and that while reason may mitigate the conflict it can never obviate the
necessity of such a conflict. What makes one interest dominant over another is power. That
being so, power is needed to destroy power. There may be the problem of how to make the
use of power ethical, but there can be no question that without power on one side it is
not possible to destroy power on the other side. Power is either economic or political.
Military power is no power today. Because it is not free power. The economic power of the
working class is the power inherent in the strike. The Untouchables as a part of the
working class can have no other economic power. As it is, this power is not adequate for
the defence of the interests of the working class. It is maimed by legislation and made
subject to injunctions, arbitrations, martial law and use of troops. Much more inadequate
is the Untouchables' power to strike.

The Untouchable is therefore under an absolute
necessity of acquiring political power as much as possible. Having regard to his
increasingly inadequate power in social and economic terms the Untouchable can never
acquire too much political power. Whatever degree of political power he acquires, it will
always be too little having regard to the vast amount of social, economic and political
power of the Hindus.

The Untouchable must remember that his
political power, no matter how large, will be of no use if he depends for representation
in the Legislature on Hindus whose political life is rested in economic and social
interests which are directly opposed to those of the Untouchables.

[f1]This
table is reprinted from 'Dr. Babasaheh Amhedkar Writings & Speeches Vol. 2', Educalion
Department. Government of Maharashtra. Bombay, p. 364. It is not recorded in the
MS.Ed.

[f15]The
necessity for making such provision for the Backward Classes in U. P. from which this
demand mainly came was amply demonstrated by what the Government of U. P. said in its
Memorandum to the Simon Commission. Regarding the composition of the U. P. Legislature it
said  " In the Province as a hole the four leading Hindu Castes. Brahman,
Thakur, Vaishya and Kayastha form 21.5 per cent of the total Hindu population, but these
four castes have supplied no less than 93 per cent of the Hindu Members of Council. The
Jats. with 1.8 per cent of the population, have contributed another 5 per cent to the
Hindu Membership; and all the millions included in the multitude of other Hindu Castes,
including the real agricultural castes, though they amount to over 76 per cent of the
Hindu population have only succeeded in supplying 2 per cent of the representation ".
p. 560.

[f50]This
quotation has been reproduced from page I ofWhat
Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables' by the author. This was not typed in
the MS of this essay.Ed.

[f51]1
Mr. Andrews once went to the length of defending the Caste system.

[f52]At
the special session of the Congress held at Calcutta in 1920 a resolution was passed of
which the following is a part:

"In
view of the fact that on the Khilafat question both Indian and Imperial Governments have
signally failed in their duty towards the Musalmans of India, and the Prime Minister has
deliberately broken his pledged word given to them, and that it is the duty of every
non-Moslem India in every legitimate manner to assist his Musalman brother in his attempt
to remove the religious calamity that has overtaken him.

"
In view of the fact that misunderstanding exist among the Sikhs as to the position of
their community in the future polity of India, this Congress assures the Sikhs that their
interests will receive the same protection in any Scheme of Swaraj for India as is
provided for Mahomedan and other minorities in provinces other than the Punjab."

[f56]The
following resolution embodies the mandate which the Congress imposed upon Mr. Gandhi when
he was chosen by the Congress as its delegate. (This was a resolution passed at the
Karachi Congress).

"This
Congress, having considered the provisional settlement between the Working Committee and
the Government of India, endorses it, and desires to make it clear that the Congress goal
of Puma Swaraj, meaning complete independence, remains intact. In the event of a way
remaining otherwise open to the Congress to be represented at any conference with the
representatives of the British Government, the Congress delegation will work for this
goal, and in particular so as to give the nation control over the army, external
affairs.finance, fiscal and economic policy, and to have a scrutiny by an impartial
tribunal of the financial transactions of the British Government in India, and to examine
and assess the obligations to be undertaken by India or England and the right to either
party to end the partnership at will; provided, however, that the Congress delegation will
be free to accept such adjustments as may be demonstrably necessary in the interests of
India."

[f58]From
this, one is likely to get the impression that Mr. Gandhi was opposed only to separate
electorates and that Mr. Gandhi was prepared to give to the untouchables joint electorates
AND RESERVED seats being granted to the untouchables was made clear by him at the Round
Table Conference. I give below the following extract from his speech in the minorities
sub-committee:

"
I would like to repeat what I have said before, that while the Congress will always accept
any solution that may be acceptable to the Hindus, the Musalmans and the Sikhs, the
Congress will be no party to special reservation or special electorates for any other
minorities."

[f60]This
document was printed by me in my Thoughts on Pakistan as Appendix in 1939. It was the
first time it saw the light of the day. Its genuineness has never been questioned. I was
able to get a copy from a Hindu Delegate to the Round Table Conference who was privileged
by the Muslim League to share the secret.

[f61]'This
shows that the document was typed on the stationery of the Muslim League Delegation

[f69]Following
extracts up to p. 305 ending with words informal meetings' are reproduced from
"WhatCongress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables ", pp. 60-62. not typed
in the MS.Ed.

[f70]See
"What Congress and Gandhi have done to the
Untouchables", p. 62. (both the above extracts are not mentioned in the MS.).Ed.

[f71]The
following text of the Communal Award is not typed in the MS. This is reproduced fromWhat Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the
Untouchables by the author. (Thacker and Co. Ltd.. 1st Ed. June 1945. pp. 80-82) Ed.

[f72]This
Table is reprinted from Dr. Ambedkar's ' What Congress and Gandhi have done to the
Untouchables at page 94. This table was not typed in the M.S.Ed.